dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3686
share rss forum feed


Rifleman
Premium
join:2004-02-09
p1a

RCMP BOOTS doors in to sieze firearms

»www.calgaryherald.com/news/alber···ory.html


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

While most of these people have no reason to own a gun in the first place it is disturbing the police are going in homes for them.



BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

said by peterboro:

While most of these people have no reason to own a gun in the first place it is disturbing the police are going in homes for them.

here's the thing though, law says they have to be locked in secure storage container(there is a list of stuff they have to conform to)

so police were busting into peoples houses, breaking their locked gun cases or safes and removing them from the property. so they need to return the firearms, then they can turn around and literally pick people up for improper storage, due to the safe/case locks being destroyed/disabled.
quote:
The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership, Topham added.

this sounds like they didn't document which guns go to which house.


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5
reply to Rifleman

“We have seized a large quantity of firearms simply because they were left by residents in their places,” said Topham.

I guess they would have preferred angry mobs of people WITH GUNS. It almost sounds like the residents should not have left their guns in their houses, which are flooded and no one is allowed into the town, except for the RCMP.

I can understand if they were ordered to search for people, but taking possessions has nothing to do with looking for stranded folk.

EDIT: Oh wait, maybe they expected random mobs to come to town in the middle of the night to a very dangerous and unstable area, ransacking the houses for guns.
--
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins".
Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner"

LlamaWorks Equipment


jaberi

join:2010-08-13
reply to Rifleman

this could seriously jeopardize the next evacuation, if there is ever another disaster.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Rifleman

*facepalm* Not only do you stop people from returning to their homes, you break into their houses and steal their guns? It's like the NRA's worst nightmares about Obama, except they're actually happening.

If I ever actually get around to getting a PAL, I'll stick to renting at the range... less trouble.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!


mekyle

join:2000-09-23
Beamsville, ON
reply to peterboro

"The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership, Topham added."

And since you can sell a non restricted firearm to anyone with a PAL with nothing more than a handshake and an exchange of cash or goods I have to wonder how many firearms the RCMP will end up keeping?



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Rifleman

As we don't have a right to bear arms (thank goodness), it makes sense that potential weapons be secured. Can you imagine the hoo ha if there was looting or weapons were stolen and appeared on the street and used in a murder in Edmonton, Winnipeg or Toronto? Then folks would be all over the RCMP for not securing weapons in the flood. Damned if they do and damned if they don't situation.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.



Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans

join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bright House

said by DKS:

As we don't have a right to bear arms (thank goodness), it makes sense that potential weapons be secured. Can you imagine the hoo ha if there was looting or weapons were stolen and appeared on the street and used in a murder in Edmonton, Winnipeg or Toronto? Then folks would be all over the RCMP for not securing weapons in the flood. Damned if they do and damned if they don't situation.

No it doesn't make any sense. It's a violation of the law, the intent of the law, and the word of the law. In following with that, it's probably also a charter violation. I don't remember much looting ever going on here in Canada. Then again, we have guns show up in exactly those cases from...B&E's even though they have been stored securely in gun safes.

They're neither damned if they do or don't. They're out to do this because they think they can get away with it. The same as them deciding to "reclassify" guns that have been available here legally for decades.


Rifleman
Premium
join:2004-02-09
p1a

1 recommendation

reply to DKS

We do have a right to bear arms.
»www.rkba.ca/legal_basis_for_rkba.html



I_H8_Spam

join:2004-03-10
St Catharines, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to Rifleman

So if I am out on vacation in the Dominican, have a couple rifles locked in a safe during my absence, the cops could just waltz in to secure them.

said by BonezX:

here's the thing though, law says they have to be locked in secure storage container(there is a list of stuff they have to conform to)

The requirement is the trigger locked, and the ammunition stored in a second location.

said by jaberi:

this could seriously jeopardize the next evacuation, if there is ever another disaster.

Very good point, the Albertan's I know are very conscious of their freedoms or perceived lack thereof.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to BonezX

said by BonezX:

here's the thing though, law says they have to be locked in secure storage container(there is a list of stuff they have to conform to)

so police were busting into peoples houses, breaking their locked gun cases or safes and removing them from the property. so they need to return the firearms, then they can turn around and literally pick people up for improper storage, due to the safe/case locks being destroyed/disabled.

It's actually a poorly written article. If they broke into homes to collect guns from side tables, closets, etc. that's one scenario (ie. improperly stored). If they broke into properly secured gun safes that's another thing.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Rifleman

Absolutely disturbing. You block innocent people from returning to their homes, then bust into the homes of innocent people to search their homes and steal their guns.

This isn't a situation where they entered the homes of known gun owners, this is a situation where they busted into homes and searched them willy nilly.


Rifleman
Premium
join:2004-02-09
p1a
reply to Rifleman

How can the owner prove which unregistered long guns belonged to him? All that data no longer exists.



I_H8_Spam

join:2004-03-10
St Catharines, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to Rifleman

Pictures, I know almost anyone with an insurance rider will have proof so the insurance provider doesn't play games. It's common practice to ensure serials are recorded.

But will the cop's accept them as proof, or just demand a bill of sale.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius



beh

@teksavvy.com
reply to Rifleman

Illegal searches, warrantless entry, violation if the charter. Well the rcmp seems to be in a roll. As for the Obama comment, take a quick search in the more heavy leaning Demand states. You'll quickly find illegal seizures as well.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to Rifleman

said by Rifleman:

How can the owner prove which unregistered long guns belonged to him? All that data no longer exists.

Bingo


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Rifleman

said by Rifleman:

We do have a right to bear arms.
»www.rkba.ca/legal_basis_for_rkba.html

Well, that's one perspective.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to beh

said by beh :

Illegal searches, warrantless entry, violation if the charter.

Perhaps folks should read the actual text of the emergency declaration and evacuation order before getting their panties in a twist. That may suspend certain rights in the emergency and give authorities extraordinary powers.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON
reply to Rifleman

said by Rifleman:

How can the owner prove which unregistered long guns belonged to him? All that data no longer exists.

Delicious.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to Rifleman

I'm as law-and-order and anyone; and usually want to side WITH the cops...

BUT - this is going too far. I can understand keeping the town secure; in order to do a staged re-patriation. I can even buy the RCMP doing "plain-sight" seizure for items that were truly in 'plain-sight' and discovered during door to door searches for victims/survivors... But actually seizeing legally owned property, that's too much.

The RCMP is going to have a big black eye, and a lot of explaining to do... Or at least they should.



dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

1 recommendation

i can see both sides to this...while i agree that this looks like going too far (in terms of gun owners), i can also see a few shady individuals breaking into homes and stealing firearms to sell on the black market...in times of disaster, douchebag looters come out in full force...they did in recent Tornado ravaged areas last month too.



digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to Rifleman

If the homes were evacuated under a state of emergency, the police have additional authority to secure the locations, including force entry.

As long as all the guns are returned, I see no issue with their conduct.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Rifleman

No need to worry about looters. The RCMP have their pick long before they show up. Fucking crooks. How many firearms will go "missing" do you think?

Did they also secure the kitchen knives? What if someone steals a knife and kills someone with it? That's a LOT more likely to happen.

Funny how they can figure out how to get enough resources to keep all those homeowners away from their homes yet they're worried looters will just waltz in sight unseen.



BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
reply to I_H8_Spam

said by I_H8_Spam:

So if I am out on vacation in the Dominican, have a couple rifles locked in a safe during my absence, the cops could just waltz in to secure them.

said by BonezX:

here's the thing though, law says they have to be locked in secure storage container(there is a list of stuff they have to conform to)

The requirement is the trigger locked, and the ammunition stored in a second location.

»www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-f···-eng.htm

either trigger locked and on display, or no trigger lock and in a locker. if all firearms were removed from the properties, there is a massive problem.

also, with restricted firearms you need to do both, if they removed them then it is a MASSIVE problem, due to the fact that they went in, searched the entire house to find where they were stored, bypassed at least two locks.

said by dirtyjeffer:

i can see both sides to this...while i agree that this looks like going too far (in terms of gun owners), i can also see a few shady individuals breaking into homes and stealing firearms to sell on the black market...in times of disaster, douchebag looters come out in full force...they did in recent Tornado ravaged areas last month too.

the difference is, most of the stuff in tornado areas is that they have no laws on proper storage and securing of firearms.


Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium
join:2005-01-20
Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
reply to elwoodblues

Yes and No.
Withstanding the challenge in Quebec over long gun data, the RCMP still have records on every person registered (legally entitled) to own a firearm. They could be either breaking into every house in the area, targeting any home in which the owner or occupant has a firearms licence (though having a licences does not mean the holder actually owns a firearm) or they are only targeting homes which have restricted (legal) weapons such as handguns which have their own separate registry (and have so since the 1930's).

Thanks to Allan Rock, anyone whom has a firearms licence also has reduced charter rights, in contrast a criminal using an illegal weapon is relatively immune to the Firearms Act. The RCMP or any law enforcement authority may enter a home for the intent of inspection without any sort of warrant. Holders of firearms licences are obliged to allow the police into their homes to examine the weapons and storage conditions. However this is the first time I have heard of them ever destructively entering a home without consent of the homeowner just to look.

It's not clear from the story if the RCMP aside from breaking into homes, if they actually broke into gun safes and removed weapons, or removed weapons which had been safely stored with a trigger lock according to the firearms act just because they where not locked up in a box, then I feel that the police have greatly overstepped their authority. (A trigger lock is sufficient storage provided that the ammunition is not stored nearby*)

By rights the police cannot break into a home just because they think it might contain weapons, they would have to seek a warrant and then have the authority to do a search and seizure.

(*the actual wording of the Firearms Act is rather poor as to what exactly nearby means, furthermore since the act came in more than a decade ago, the RCMP have yet to approve a single storage device or container as meeting their fuzzily defined requirements)

Anyways considering the RCMP’s track record in law enforcement as well as how well (actually how badly) they tend to misplace/loose their own weapons (oddly enough no officer of the law has ever faced a single charge for loosing their weapons) and the fact that the area is under watch and no one is allowed in – they would have been better left at the homes. No doubt that by the time they do allow the residents back into the area, the weapons will be utterly useless, as well as the homes and all belongings infested with mould. Hell they should have just torched the area and told residence “it is for your own safety”.

Rest assured that if the RCMP did break the law, nothing much will come of it, they have no credibility to further damage.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

2 edits

said by Thane_Bitter:

Withstanding the challenge in Quebec over long gun data, the RCMP still have records on every person registered (legally entitled) to own a firearm.

Licensing has nothing whatsoever to do with registries. Non restricted firearm registration data was deleted over a year ago for everyone not residing in Quebec.

said by Thane_Bitter:

The RCMP or any law enforcement authority may enter a home for the intent of inspection without any sort of warrant. Holders of firearms licences are obliged to allow the police into their homes to examine the weapons and storage conditions.

Completely false. Consent must be obtained from the occupant of the house-dwelling. If consent is not given a warrant has to be applied for. Notice of the inspection also has to be given to the owner and/or occupant of the house-dwelling ahead of the inspection. See section 104 of the Firearms Act.

said by Thane_Bitter:

However this is the first time I have heard of them ever destructively entering a home without consent of the homeowner just to look.

They have absolutely no power to do that either way under the Firearms Act or Criminal Code.


EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
canada

Judging by their actions, the RCMP feel that the laws are different when a state of emergency is declared.
--
~ Project Hope ~



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2

said by EUS:

Judging by their actions, the RCMP feel that the laws are different when a state of emergency is declared.

In some cases, they are.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Markie
Still Living Free

join:2009-07-11
Canada
reply to Rifleman

So just who are the thieves and bad guys again? I am constantly amazed at those who attack religion and its followers as mindless sheep and yet turn around and praise the biggest cult we have going in the 1st world, big government and its legions of worshipers.

For all that needed to be done, this is what the jackboots decided was a top priority. Small government wouldn't have had the resources to go door to door and break into peoples homes to ascertain IF there were firearms present. Small government would have lacked the means to enforce a mandatory evacuation. After the fact, small government could be held accountable for this outrage...the current racket and its minions will likely praise the operation in the name of common good or whatever the socialist tripe buzzword of the day is.

States of emergency need new rules, they ought not to be opportunity for agendas save the direct confrontation of whatever precipitated the order. The slippery slope of overreach, the misallocation of scarce resources, these must stop and the rule of law must be adhered to by ALL.

Sounds like they learned some new techniques from the Boston fiasco!
--
»libertarian.on.ca/