dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
43

Rifleman
Premium Member
join:2004-02-09
p1a

Rifleman

Premium Member

Re: RCMP BOOTS doors in to sieze firearms

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

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by Rifleman:

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

Bingo
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj to Rifleman

Member

to Rifleman
said by Rifleman:

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

Delicious.

Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium Member
join:2005-01-20

Thane_Bitter to elwoodblues

Premium Member

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 (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

2 edits

IamGimli (banned)

Member

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 Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS

Premium Member

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

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

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.

Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium Member
join:2005-01-20

Thane_Bitter to IamGimli

Premium Member

to IamGimli
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 it’s 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 don’t think their arguments will fly, however since they have already taken property, they don’t 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 don’t 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.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned)

Member

said by Gershom_1624 :

In any future evacuation, people will take their firearms WITH them. That's even what the RCMP seemed to imply was best.

Yep. And anyone doing this with restricted or prohibited firearms will promptly be arrested, the firearms confiscated and charged criminally for transporting restricted/prohibited firearms without a valid Authorisation to Transport issued by the RCMP.

Thus the RCMP will continue it's private political agenda of civilian disarmament by further criminalizing the most law-abiding segment of society through paper crimes that have absolutely no influence on public safety.
said by Thane_Bitter:

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

Except that doesn't fly. There was no immediate danger to anyone that would prevent them to take the time to get warrants.

Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium Member
join:2005-01-20

Thane_Bitter

Premium Member

I agree, and I can only hope the courts do agree and actually do something about it.