said by IamGimli: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.
To you first point, yes that is how it works they are separate items though they are interconnected. You must have a licence to own firearms before you can legally own actual firearms (there are different types licences, but the one which requires the least amount of effort on behalf of the applicant to be granted does allows the ownership of non-restricted weapons such as long guns). The RCMP maintains these records and will kindly remind you to renew your firearms licence every five years. Side note, should they forget to send the reminder or if Canada Post lose it, you are obligated legally to renew the licence; forgetting to renew and arguing that they failed to notify you of its pending expatriation is covered in the Firearms Act and naturally is grounds for seizing any weapons you own (without compensation naturally) though they are kind enough to all a grace period. One can have a firearms licence without owning a firearm. As to gun registries (since the long gun one is dead for all provinces except Quebec, in which it is stuck in hibernation till its thick-headed government looses its final appeal and the date is finally is deleted) only restricted (i.e. handguns) and prohibited (despite the name, perfectly legal provided the owner has the correct firearms license) registries still exist and are handled by the RCMP. You can't own a non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited weapon legally without the correct type of firearms licence.
If I wasn't clear on that you have my apologies, but as you can see there are really three (down from four) piles of data which the RCMP can freely access.
My point was they (the RCMP) have records of everyone entitled to own firearms, as well as having lists of anyone that owns legal restricted weapons. Should a home have property removed, say an old rifle which was converted into a lamp (perfectly legal and not considered a firearm or weapon at all) be taken from a home in which the home owner and occupants have no firearms licences; it would strongly suggest that they just raided homes at random or perhaps targeted them all. Did they raid anyone with a licence or just target legal owners of restricted / prohibited weapons, or did they just raid every home in the area, hopefully the media (though ideally the courts) will ask such questions?
said by IamGimli: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.
To your second point, I would like to agree with you but I can't, look at the next section
quote:
Search and seizure without warrant
117.04(2) Where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or any other person, for the person to possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (1) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.
It's not hard how see how the RCMP will justify their actions.
-there is a flood,
-no one is home as the area is evacuated so obtaining consent is impractical
-people are really pissed off and stressed out, emotions are running high
-the courts are a mess because of the flooding in the downtown area
Ergo - therefore we are going in to take weapons
At some point they will have to justify their little fishing expedition before a peace officer (Judge, JP), but only after the warrant less search given them ample time to manufacture additional arguments as to why their actions were valid. They have to show to him that they had reasonable grounds to get a warrant in the first place. Honestly I dont think their arguments will fly, however since they have already taken property, they dont have to return it unless the owner can prove lawful ownership even if it was unlawfully taken. However given that the homeowners and firearms owners will be dealing with flood cleanup they probably dont have the time, energy, and money to take the RCMP to court over this. I think I have covered your final comment.
All this BS for the sake of "public safely", which is a bit of a farce considering they (the RCMP) are the only ones in the area and are actively preventing anyone from entering the area. Apparently they have no confidence in their own ability to keep people out.