Consider the following problem: Jim was at the Urban Tactical range in Brantford firing his semi-automatic Czechoslovakian VZ52 pistol. It is a restricted weapon for which he has proper authorization. Towards the end of the evening the pistol jammed. Jim tried but couldn't free it at the range so he put a trigger lock on, placed the pistol in a case and took it back to his home in Paris. He required more information before trying to free the jam. Jim did not believe the gun was loaded. A magazine for this gun holds eight rounds and when cleaning up at the range prior to leaving, he had picked up eight brass casings. This led him to conclude he had fired all the rounds and the jam that occurred was mechanical in nature. Jim is vice president of the local gun club but not a firearns expert. After obtaining additional information about field stripping the VZ52 pistol and consulting with the owner of the local gun store, he set out to free the jam at a work bench in his apartment in Paris. Unfortunately, he was wrong in his assumption the pistol was empty and it went off, firing a bullet into the next-door apartment. No one was injured in the incident, but his neighbour was certainly startled. Jim tried to call the police from his cell phone - which proved to be inoperable. He checked the hallway of the apartment for signs of distress and finding none returned to his apartment and patched the bullet hole in his wall. At this point he saw the police arriving outside his building and went down to meet them at the front door.Jim gave his evidence in a clear, straightforward and entirely credible fashion. He was very co-operative with the police and clearly embarrassed by what had happened. The police charged Jim as follows: "On January 11, 2024, at or near Paris, Ontario, did, without lawful excuse, use (carry, handle, ship, transport or store)a firearm (or prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device,ammunition or prohibited ammunition), to wit: a handgun in a carelessmanner, contrary to Section 86(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada." At the trial Crown and defence both called witnesses found by the Court to be experts in the field of firearms. It is apparent the Czech made VZ52 pistol has a bad reputation for jamming. Various approaches to freeing the jams were also outlined. One of the expert witnesses testified he would have done what Jim did. After being unable to free the jam on the firing range, the expert would have taken the gun home to where he had access to tools to work on it there. The other expert advanced the opinion that tools should be taken to the range to free the jam. The range was about to close at the time of the jam and Jim could not leave his firearm at the range. Assume the role of the judge. Would you find Jim guilty of s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code? Please provide reasons.