Mounties to make gun grabs policy

[hillbillyreefer]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/07/11/mounties-to-make-gun-grabs-policy

Mounties to make gun grabs policy

BY LORNE GUNTER ,QMI AGENCY
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JULY 12, 2014 06:00 PM CDT

Floods water. (QMI Agency)
Mounties in Alberta are set to update their policy manuals regarding disaster response “in the very near future.” In light of the devastating floods that roared through the southern third of the province in the summer of 2013, that’s probably wise.

But the draft manual (obtained through access to information by independent firearms researcher Dennis Young) shows that RCMP’s K Division is intent on making gun grabbing a permanent part of its disaster action plan.

Since it remains a criminal offence in Canada to store a gun in your home without a trigger lock or outside a locked cabinet, the Mountie manual urges officers in the middle of a rescue operation to round up all the guns the see.

“You may seize any item in plain view that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence, if there is a pre-existing lawful reason for intrusion upon the person or premises,” the document claims.

No doubt the Mounties will argue that once they have been asked by local emergency officials to go door-to-door to hunt for survivors, that satisfies the requirement of a “pre-existing lawful reason."

You might think after the hornets’ nest the RCMP stirred up in High River last year they would stay away from grabbing private property from private homes, but not so.

The manual also says any evidence collected by Mounties while scouring for survivors in evacuated towns must have been discovered “inadvertently” and must be “immediately apparent as incriminating evidence.”

In other words, Mounties can’t go looking for guns or meth labs or pinched credit cards. And they can’t examine private property to determine whether it is criminal. They have to know it’s criminal before touching it.

Both the existing and draft Mountie disaster handbooks rely on the “plain view doctrine,” a largely Common Law definition of what police can seize without a warrant. No doubt the RCMP believe “plain view” covers all their sins in High River, and that is why they are eager to codify it in their new manual.

But the plain-view doctrine as understood by Canadian courts is quite narrow.

Anything a Canadian “knowingly exposes to the public or abandons in a public place,” is deemed to be in plain view. Or anything a “peace officer … observes by use of one or more of his senses from a lawful vantage point,” is in plain view.

But here’s something I’m calling the “panty drawer doctrine”: If a Mountie is in a house without a warrant because he’s looking for survivors of disaster (legitimate), and he starts rifling through places no survivor would ever be able to hide – like underwear drawers, gun cabinets and fridges – then his actions are no longer covered by the “pre-existing lawful reason” for him to be in the home.

Nor is his discovery of any evidence “inadvertent.”

Similarly, if the Mounties search a home without a warrant after the immediate threat to human safety has passed, then they are not in a “lawful vantage point.” So they can take nothing they see – not even a giant metal tank labelled “Meth Cooking Equipment.”

If they go back to a home two or three times (as they did in High River), after they have already searched it once and found no survivors, then again they are not there as a result of the emergency. They can’t take stuff.

And if they target specific homes for warrantless searches because national police computers tell them firearms owners live there, then their purpose for entering the home is not protection of life and limb. It is an illegal search, pure and simple.

No policy manual can justify what happened in High River.

[openfire]

So they didn't make gun grabs policy.
They headline is just click bait. :snapoutofit:

[hillbillyreefer]

Not really, just wrote down that grabbing private property in house they break into is now "policy".

Reinforcing the fact that you have zero property rights in this country.

I wonder how many folks will stay behind in disasters just to keep the cops out of their houses?

[Forest Techer]

Not really, just wrote down that grabbing private property in house they break into is now "policy".

?

Where does it say that?? Please highlight anywhere it says they can take legal property stored by the book?

If something is owned by you AND illegal AND in plain view, then yes they don't give a hoot about your "property" rights. (Take note illegal drug aficionados)

The last 3-5 paragraphs are quite clear on what is considered plain view and how nothing in this policy would protect RCMP if they were guilty of breaking into a gun safe and confiscating legal private property. Or other possible high river scenarios

If anything this policy will help the average joe or Sally (or criminal) organize better storage methods in case of emergencies. Ie not in plain sight if it's illegal!

[bison]

Unless i invite you in I say stay out of my G-damm house ..period!
Especially cops.

[Forest Techer]

^ Good! Agreed. Change whatever public safety laws allows this or create a universal "house is cleared -no drugs or injured people inside" sign that must be obeyed.

Still not going to fix the in "plain view" issue with private property.

[silverdoctor]

Policy is the key word here... How many policies do we deal with at the end of the day. Try to bring a clothing stuff back to a store, chances are a policy requires recording ID for the return - but if you buck the policy, they generally won't refuse you. And how many employees back the policy as it's their job?

What about mandatory evacuation? What happens in the next major event and people are actually forced from their homes under mandatory evac? At the moment they seem to leave people be, the ones that are willing to take their chances. Police are allowed to lie to Canadians, and the fact that most Canadians don't know the laws of the country - being told "leave or you'll be under arrest" will ring hard in the ears.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the next major event in Canada.

[marxman]

i dont see anything in there except that the rcmp didnt know their job in the first place now they are being told

[hillbillyreefer]

Where does it say that?? Please highlight anywhere it says they can take legal property stored by the book?

If something is owned by you AND illegal AND in plain view, then yes they don't give a hoot about your "property" rights. (Take note illegal drug aficionados)

The last 3-5 paragraphs are quite clear on what is considered plain view and how nothing in this policy would protect RCMP if they were guilty of breaking into a gun safe and confiscating legal private property. Or other possible high river scenarios

If anything this policy will help the average joe or Sally (or criminal) organize better storage methods in case of emergencies. Ie not in plain sight if it's illegal!

What about the guns that were trigger locked in HR they stole? What about the ones hidden in places too small for humans that they sniffed out and stole in HR?
None of these guns were in plain view until the horseshoes busted open the homes and started to search. Pretty sad when "in plain view" means the authorities had to break into your private home to see it.

Who is going to charge the RCMP if they do break the law?

In an evacuation situation they could frame whoever they want to. Just plant something illegal and charge away, doesn't matter if they get a conviction. The crown will ruin you financially.

The police have enough power over us, why do some insist on allowing them unlimited power in certain situations?

[silverdoctor]

What about the guns that were trigger locked in HR they stole? What about the ones hidden in places too small for humans that they sniffed out and stole in HR?

Who is going to charge the RCMP if they do break the law?

In an evacuation situation they could frame whoever they want to. Just plant something illegal and charge away, doesn't matter if they get a conviction. The crown will ruin you financially.

The police have enough power over us, why do some insist on allowing them unlimited power in certain situations?

Not to mention all the ammunition that was destroyed without compensation.

[hillbillyreefer]

Not to mention all the ammunition that was destroyed without compensation.

Some of it was in view, therefore you should be deprived of your property. Come on silverdoctor, this is Canada. The land of no property rights and a citizenship that doesn't believe that their property should be theirs.

[3blade]

Disgusting.

From the words of my grandfather (a retired eps cop) : "what the hell do we need politicians for if the laws are going to be made up by some ******** mountie dictatorship!"

Long past due to send the royal mounting gestapo out of Alberta.

[Forest Techer]

What about the guns that were trigger locked in HR they stole? What about the ones hidden in places too small for humans that they sniffed out and stole in HR?
None of these guns were in plain view until the horseshoes busted open the homes and started to search. Pretty sad when "in plain view" means the authorities had to break into your private home to see it.

Who is going to charge the RCMP if they do break the law?

In an evacuation situation they could frame whoever they want to. Just plant something illegal and charge away, doesn't matter if they get a conviction. The crown will ruin you financially.

The police have enough power over us, why do some insist on allowing them unlimited power in certain situations?

I don't disagree. But I see nothing in the article you posted which solidifies that looking for or confiscating legally stored firearms is a matter of policy. Then or now.

This article says nothing new or surprising.

[fish gunner]

Disgusting.

From the words of my grandfather (a retired eps cop) : "what the hell do we need politicians for if the laws are going to be made up by some ******** mountie dictatorship!"

Long past due to send the royal mounting gestapo out of Alberta.

To be replaced by????? The provincial gestapo lo Its quite simple exceed safe storage with secure storage . Not a single word of a safe being carried away :) store firearms at the lowest level and in a worse case scenario they could be removed as it is classified as safe storage big difference from secured storage . Im quite sure if a state of emergency is declared the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. Sad really a town devistated by flooding and folks are moaning abought fornt doors and a few hundred firearms. First world moan .

[hillbillyreefer]

I don't disagree. But I see nothing in the article you posted which solidifies that looking for or confiscating legally stored firearms is a matter of policy. Then or now.

This article says nothing new or surprising.

Good enough. I just posted exactly what Gunter wrote and was published in the Winnipeg Sun.

My personal feelings are the horseshoes should stay the H out of my home and off my property unless armed with a warrant, or I invite them in. Allowing them to make their own rules of engagement is unacceptable. Whether it be search and seizure or stealing a legally acquired approved classic green or 858 years after the fact. M

[wasteland.soldier]

Sad really a town devistated by flooding and folks are moaning abought fornt doors and a few hundred firearms. First world moan .

That's a pretty weak argument.

Two people are discussing property taxes. Do you run in and say "ahh! There's people with nothing in Africa! First world problems!"

Two people are discussing a recent hail storm. Do you run in and say "ahh! The Gaza Strip is getting pounded with airstrikes! First world problems!"

I sure hope not.

There have been many threads about the devastating impact of the floods. Who are you to tell people that a year later they shouldn't be discussing one of the details of what happened and what may happen the next time around?

[fish gunner]

That's a pretty weak argument.

Two people are discussing property taxes. Do you run in and say "ahh! There's people with nothing in Africa! First world problems!"

Two people are discussing a recent hail storm. Do you run in and say "ahh! The Gaza Strip is getting pounded with airstrikes! First world problems!"

I sure hope not.

There have been many threads about the devastating impact of the floods. Who are you to tell people that a year later they shouldn't be discussing one of the details of what happened and what may happen the next time around?
Like you im giving my thoughts. Unlike you I added to the subject of the discussion as opposed to picking at the quoted post :) I have every right to not exceed the form rules . Hbr has me on ignore any way and hes op.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Grizzly Adams]

Think a lot of people are pretty non nonchalant about their property rights. In the case of the missing boy and his grandparents, cops were looking for people who bought something at the estate sale to come forward with a picture of any item they bought. Next thing you know, they were conducting property searches of anyone who came forward. Then they have the balls to complain that only about half have contacted them. :confused:

Grizz

[wasteland.soldier]

Like you im giving my thoughts. Unlike you I added to the subject of the discussion as opposed to picking at the quoted post :) I have every right to not exceed the form rules . Hbr has me on ignore any way and hes op.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But I do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

[wasteland.soldier]

Think a lot of people are pretty non nonchalant about their property rights. In the case of the missing boy and his grandparents, cops were looking for people who bought something at the estate sale to come forward with a picture of any item they bought. Next thing you know, they were conducting property searches of anyone who came forward. Then they have the balls to complain that only about half have contacted them. :confused:

Grizz

Do you have any links on this? Not that I think you're making it up, I'm just amazed that they'd be so willing to have such a chilling effect on public cooperation in future investigations!

[bobalong]

i'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But i do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

lol

[fish gunner]

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But I do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

Iyo....

[qwert]

In the case of the missing boy and his grandparents, cops were looking for people who bought something at the estate sale to come forward with a picture of any item they bought. Next thing you know, they were conducting property searches of anyone who came forward.

More information please.

[bison]

^ Good! Agreed. Change whatever public safety laws allows this or create a universal "house is cleared -no drugs or injured people inside" sign that must be obeyed.

Still not going to fix the in "plain view" issue with private property.What is so hard to understand for these idiots what "private property" stands for.
Anything comes only in to "plain view" when you break down doors and go in.

Just a simple sign on the door or window should suffice

Do not violate my property.
"This house is vacant"
No people or animals inside.

[DoubleU]

Can someone here please explain to me why this is a big deal or "bad" idea?

I honestly could care less if the RCMP took my guns for safe keeping during a disaster. I cant speak for everyone in High River but people were looting the S&*T out of the houses there, how many of your guns do you think would be missing had they not been held until they could be taken somewhere safe? Guns are a unique property so I dont need to hear about jewellery etc but guns are a property that criminals and organized crime love to have in their possession.

People are complaining about nothing. Get over it its not like they are stealing them. The point has been missed entirely by your "rights" complaints. Next time your house floods take your guns with you then instead of the evil government "stealing" them from you. This topic has been beaten to death.

[silverdoctor]

Can someone here please explain to me why this is a big deal or "bad" idea?

I honestly could care less if the RCMP took my guns for safe keeping during a disaster. I cant speak for everyone in High River but people were looting the S&*T out of the houses there, how many of your guns do you think would be missing had they not been held until they could be taken somewhere safe? Guns are a unique property so I dont need to hear about jewellery etc but guns are a property that criminals and organized crime love to have in their possession.

People are complaining about nothing. Get over it its not like they are stealing them. The point has been missed entirely by your "rights" complaints. Next time your house floods take your guns with you then instead of the evil government "stealing" them from you. This topic has been beaten to death.


Had people been told upfront and being given a choice in the matter, it may have been looked upon differently. Choice being the key here. The police lied outright, caused unnecessary damages to homes and lost alot of trust due to the way they handled it.

People realized the hard way that property rights mean nothing.

[DoubleU]

What is so hard to understand for these idiots what "private property" stands for.
Anything comes only in to "plain view" when you break down doors and go in.

Just a simple sign on the door or window should suffice

Do not violate my property.
"This house is vacant"
No people or animals inside.

RCMP, military etc entered homes to ensure there was noone who was unable to exit themselves inside. They didnt kick every single door in High River. They kicked the doors of houses in the impact zone to ensure noone was dead inside, trapped or unable to get out themself. With noway of relocking the doors taking the firearms was the best decision that could be made.

Would it of made sense to leave notes on doors saying "This house is vacant", sure, but at the time people panicked and noone did it. A simple sign would have sufficed if it was done, but in High River it wasn't so I think the best situation unfolded.

[pseelk]

Elkhunter,Wanna take this one?^^^^^^^^

[DoubleU]

Had people been told upfront and being given a choice in the matter, it may have been looked upon differently. Choice being the key here. The police lied outright, caused unnecessary damages to homes and lost alot of trust due to the way they handled it.

People realized the hard way that property rights mean nothing.

This was a time sensitive situation with people dispersed everywhere. All of the damages from doors, to locks to dirty carpets in written off houses were replaced at the cost of the government. Property doesn't mean anything when life comes first. Blaming the police entirely for this also isn't fair considering ive heard the military doing much of the "property crimes" you describe.

A decision was made under exigent circumstances. Whether the decision was right or wrong I still believe to some degree the right action was taken.

[DoubleU]

Elkhunter,Wanna take this one?^^^^^^^^

Lets go, give it to me. Sees im the only one on this forum with a different opinion other than the Police being Nazis. :fighting0030:

[pseelk]

Lets go, give it to me. Sees im the only one on this forum with a different opinion other than the Police being Nazis. :fighting0030:

That right there should tell you something,But you are entitled to your opinion.:)

[DoubleU]

That right there should tell you something,But you are entitled to your opinion.:)


A very pro-gun forum is not the place to start a debate but the topic is getting old fast to me and people need to move on. When the government steals children ill be concerned, until then, kicking in doors to flood ravaged homes and holding on to some guns isnt exactly pushing my buttons.

[pseelk]

A very pro-gun forum is not the place to start a debate but the topic is getting old fast to me and people need to move on. When the government steals children ill be concerned, until then, kicking in doors to flood ravaged homes and holding on to some guns isnt exactly pushing my buttons.

If its that troublesome ,You do have the option of not reading or posting on the subject.Just sayin

[fish gunner]

A very pro-gun forum is not the place to start a debate but the topic is getting old fast to me and people need to move on. When the government steals children ill be concerned, until then, kicking in doors to flood ravaged homes and holding on to some guns isnt exactly pushing my buttons.its possible you dont own a tin foil wardrobe. What most here miss, as ive said on more than one occasion the police and military generally dont do things by halves. So if it was a gun grab they would have every single fire arm in high river.. locksmiths, plasma torches , metal detectors ect ect . However this was not the case and rudimentry search of property's brought forward a few hundred fire arms, of which it has been reported 99% have been returned safely.

[silverdoctor]

RCMP, military etc entered homes to ensure there was noone who was unable to exit themselves inside. They didnt kick every single door in High River. They kicked the doors of houses in the impact zone to ensure noone was dead inside, trapped or unable to get out themself. With noway of relocking the doors taking the firearms was the best decision that could be made.

Would it of made sense to leave notes on doors saying "This house is vacant", sure, but at the time people panicked and noone did it. A simple sign would have sufficed if it was done, but in High River it wasn't so I think the best situation unfolded.

I think you need to reread EVERYTHING that the RCMP did in High River. Some homes that weren't affected by the flood had the door kicked in and guns taken. Your post is ignorant DoubleU, get informed.

The police had plenty of opportunity to open their mouths and be upfront with people, but when they finally did, the damage was done. The fact that they have taken zero accountability?

[Sneeze]

You simpletons just don't get it.

Its not just about the RCMP taking guns.

The issue is the RCMP using their position of trust to illegally enter and seize property from lawful citizens.

If you are not upset about it something is wrong with your brain. Regardless that the property was returned - it was a breach of the most basic and most powerful law of our land. - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Allowing our National Police force to throw this law out the window - even if it saves just one life - is a insult to the individual and a threat to western values.

The individual is what makes our society great and when that individual can have his/her rights arbitrarily suspended by anything but a judge/jury we are already a ways down the slippery slope.

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

- William Pitt

[elkhunter11]

Sad really a town devistated by flooding and folks are moaning abought fornt doors and a few hundred firearms. First world moan .

Those of us that were born and raised in Canada, a supposed free country, see this as being about our rights as Canadian citizens. We have the legal right to expect that our property, is safe from the very people that we pay to protect both ourselves, and our property. Unfortunately, the police in this country seem to think that they can do as they please, whether they are obeying our laws or not, and then make up lies afterward, in an attempt to justify their actions.

As for the people that were born and raised elsewhere, in places where personal freedoms and property rights mean little, I can understand why they can't figure out why many Canadians get upset, when our rights and freedoms are trampled on by the police.

[Lefty-Canuck]

RCMP, military etc entered homes to ensure there was noone who was unable to exit themselves inside. They didnt kick every single door in High River. They kicked the doors of houses in the impact zone to ensure noone was dead inside, trapped or unable to get out themself. With noway of relocking the doors taking the firearms was the best decision that could be made.

Would it of made sense to leave notes on doors saying "This house is vacant", sure, but at the time people panicked and noone did it. A simple sign would have sufficed if it was done, but in High River it wasn't so I think the best situation unfolded.

You think a sign saying ,"clear, no one inside" would have stopped them from entering.....

That's funny!

This really has little to do with guns and everything to do with our fundamental rights and freedoms that they disregarded and stepped on!

LC

[fish gunner]

You simpletons just don't get it.

Its not just about the RCMP taking guns.

The issue is the RCMP using their position of trust to illegally enter and seize property from lawful citizens.

If you are not upset about it something is wrong with your brain. Regardless that the property was returned - it was a breach of the most basic and most powerful law of our land. - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Allowing our National Police force to throw this law out the window - even if it saves just one life - is a insult to the individual and a threat to western values.

The individual is what makes our society great and when that individual can have his/her rights arbitrarily suspended by anything but a judge/jury we are already a ways down the slippery slope.

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

- William Pittso now you quote castle law of the uk lololol so your a royalist . Like me.

[fish gunner]

Those of us that were born and raised in Canada, a supposed free country, see this as being about our rights as Canadian citizens. We have the legal right to expect that our property, is safe from the very people that we pay to protect both ourselves, and our property. Unfortunately, the police in this country seem to think that they can do as they please, whether they are obeying our laws or not, and then make up lies afterward, in an attempt to justify their actions.

As for the people that were born and raised elsewhere, in places where personal freedoms and property rights mean little, I can understand why they can't figure out why many Canadians get upset, when our rights and freedoms are trampled on by the police.

Thats really wierd that the right you speak of is based on the laws of the UK. so you suggest it was every day normal sit rep in high river and the RC's and military just showed up and started kicking in doors. Nope it was during or post, State of emergancy . In fact on that very sad day I watched the state of emergancy being called /posted in sundre. How boring, u's not frm hear we thinks we have the US constatutin so go back form theres. Lol magna carta hmm home as a castle yep ...till its below the high water mark . :thinking-006:

[FCLightning]

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But I do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

Yeah, that one.:sHa_shakeshout:

[BANG]

Some extremely disturbing views here i hope its just boredom leading to playing devils advocate how anyone could not be extremely upset by these illegal activities purpetrated against us by OUR public SERVENTS is truly beyond me..

[elkhunter11]

Thats really wierd that the right you speak of is based on the laws of the UK. so you suggest it was every day normal sit rep in high river and the RC's and military just showed up and started kicking in doors. Nope it was during or post, State of emergancy . In fact on that very sad day I watched the state of emergancy being called /posted in sundre. How boring, u's not frm hear we thinks we have the US constatutin so go back form theres. Lol magna carta hmm home as a castle yep ...till its below the high water mark

Unfortunately we don't have a real constitution, like the USA, where everyone is equal under the law. Unfortunately when the Americans became tired of being oppressed by the British, and fought and defeated the British to form a country of their own, with more just laws, the people from the North declined to join in, so we are stuck with laws that have far too much basis in British law. The fact that our laws still refer to the crown, when our country is ruled by a parliament, rather than a monarch, is proof of just how backwards our laws are. Perhaps if the Royal was removed from RCMP name, and the stupid crown was removed from their emblem, they would be more inclined to do what we pay them to do, rather than to act as if they are above the law, like some kind of royalty.

[Redfrog]

A very pro-gun forum is not the place to start a debate but the topic is getting old fast to me and people need to move on. When the government steals children ill be concerned, until then, kicking in doors to flood ravaged homes and holding on to some guns isnt exactly pushing my buttons.

I agree. Like Hildebeast Clinton said about Benghazi, "What difference does it make":thinking-006:

[elkhunter11]

I agree. Like Hildebeast Clinton said about Benghazi, "What difference does it make":thinking-006:

The point being,that if the RCMP are not held accountable for their actions at High River, they will continue to do as they please, choosing any excuse that seems convenient at the time.

[silver]

so now you quote castle law of the uk lololol so your a royalist . Like me.

Whenever someone posts lol, my opinion of their IQ drops, when they run it on to lolol, it drops even further.

[fish gunner]

Whenever someone posts lol, my opinion of their IQ drops, when they run it on to lolol, it drops even further.

Whee-o good thing its an opinion. Happily mine was tested repeatedly, And found to be above average, But thanks for the concern.:)

[Moosejuice]

The point being,that if the RCMP are not held accountable for their actions at High River, they will continue to do as they please, choosing any excuse that seems convenient at the time.

Not the best quote to use anyway.
Kind of inappropriate when taken in context.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

What we need to do is to stop the establishment of policy becoming normal practice becoming law.

The start point is HR.

Every gun owner needs to insist that those crimes are prosecuted and that the government elect lnows that their standing in the next federal election depends on whether they do their job and stand up for our rights and the Charter or not.

A class action suit by those impacted wouldn't hurt either, especially if it is made very public.

[Redfrog]

Not the best quote to use anyway.
Kind of inappropriate when taken in context.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

As much as you'd like to derail this thread. I'll pass. Suffice to say. She lied and fabricated reasons for things that she did and did not do, and then brushed it off as unimportant and ....oh look there's a squirrel.:thinking-006::snapoutofit:

[fish gunner]

Unfortunately we don't have a real constitution, like the USA, where everyone is equal under the law. Unfortunately when the Americans became tired of being oppressed by the British, and fought and defeated the British to form a country of their own, with more just laws, the people from the North declined to join in, so we are stuck with laws that have far too much basis in British law. The fact that our laws still refer to the crown, when our country is ruled by a parliament, rather than a monarch, is proof of just how backwards our laws are. Perhaps if the Royal was removed from RCMP name, and the stupid crown was removed from their emblem, they would be more inclined to do what we pay them to do, rather than to act as if they are above the law, like some kind of royalty.

You should really read more on the rcmp and the fact they have been reflective invited to many sh hole disaster areas to help train and assist in crean up recovery efforts ,hati , the indian ocean tsunami ,bosnia ect ect. Hmmm some what respected around the world. Oh geeze the french won the us war of independence yawn . The terrorists yanks had been on the back foot for two years blah . You might remember the RN a and Hm forces were defeating you boy Napoleon at the time uggg. For the tenth time nice constitution all right shame it took till 1968 to actually be true roughly speaking :sHa_sarcasticlol:
Any way back on track I was at ground zero 2hrs north and can only speak of the respect and courteous actions of the RC's in the sundre area and there assistance in that area. Hence it boggles yhat it was sit rep normal and doors just started getting kicked and some of the fire arms in high river were secured ime house clearances do a wee bit mpre damage than a front door and 99% of the weapons are returned safely to the rightful owners in a prompt fashion. One guy was actually on the news applauding the actions for saving his collection hmmmm media spin im sure.

[Moosejuice]

As much as you'd like to derail this thread. I'll pass. Suffice to say. She lied and fabricated reasons for things that she did and did not do, and then brushed it off as unimportant and ....oh look there's a squirrel.:thinking-006::snapoutofit:

No worse than her opponents that cut funding for upgrades and forgetting about all the attacks on their watch.

All I'm saying is that if you want to use a quote it should be appropriate to the topic.

I agree with the sentiment but not the quote used to illustrate the point because it actually supports a view opposite to what you intended.

That is all.

[hillbillyreefer]

The point being,that if the RCMP are not held accountable for their actions at High River, they will continue to do as they please, choosing any excuse that seems convenient at the time.

Because we have not held them accountable they are now writing this breach of laws into their policy (rules of engagement) book. The only excuse they now need is that its's "policy", this policy will become the rule of law. Remember it's a just rule if it keeps adding to the progressives power over others.

[score]

You simpletons just don't get it.

Its not just about the RCMP taking guns.

The issue is the RCMP using their position of trust to illegally enter and seize property from lawful citizens.

If you are not upset about it something is wrong with your brain. Regardless that the property was returned - it was a breach of the most basic and most powerful law of our land. - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Allowing our National Police force to throw this law out the window - even if it saves just one life - is a insult to the individual and a threat to western values.

The individual is what makes our society great and when that individual can have his/her rights arbitrarily suspended by anything but a judge/jury we are already a ways down the slippery slope.

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

- William Pitt

x100! I have a hard time seeing so many that don't grasp this concept. Big trouble for our kids.......

[hillbillyreefer]

A very pro-gun forum is not the place to start a debate but the topic is getting old fast to me and people need to move on. When the government steals children ill be concerned, until then, kicking in doors to flood ravaged homes and holding on to some guns isnt exactly pushing my buttons.

This forum doesn't look too pro gun to me, in fact lately it's been taking on bit of an anti gun tone.

Are you a cop or just pro state powers & anti individual rights?

[elkhunter11]

You should really read more on the rcmp and the fact they have been reflective invited to many sh hole disaster areas to help train and assist in crean up recovery efforts ,hati , the indian ocean tsunami ,bosnia ect ect. Hmmm some what respected around the world.

For one, it doesn't take much to improve on Haiti, or Bosnia, or the third world Asian areas that you refer to, so compared to their backwards law enforcement, the RCMP are a positive example. As to being respected, the people in those areas hear glorified stories of the NWMP, and the early RCMP, and they have not actually lived under modern day RCMP rule, so they have not experienced what is going on in places like High River. They have no idea, what the RCMP have become.

Oh geeze the french won the us war of independence yawn . The terrorists yanks had been on the back foot for two years blah . You might remember the RN a and Hm forces were defeating you boy Napoleon at the time uggg. For the tenth time nice constitution all right shame it took till 1968 to actually be true roughly speaking

None of which changes the fact, that the once might British, lost to the Americans, and the Americans became a world power, as the British lost power and influence around the world.

This forum doesn't look too pro gun to me, in fact lately it's been taking on bit of an anti gun tone.


Certain members, have always posted with an anti firearms tone, very notable one person that has posted several times on this thread. He seems to support the draconian firearms laws employed by the british.

[silver]

Whee-o good thing its an opinion. Happily mine was tested repeatedly, And found to be above average, But thanks for the concern.:)

Are you implying your opinion was tested repeatedly and is above average?

If your point is your IQ is above average, why don't you apply it to your grammar, sentence construction, and punctuation so the rest of us can understand just exactly what the heck your point is.

[Moosejuice]

Because we have not held them accountable they are now writing this breach of laws into their policy (rules of engagement) book. The only excuse they now need is that its's "policy", this policy will become the rule of law. Remember it's a just rule if it keeps adding to the progressives power over others.

Precedence.

They normalize the practice and trin us like dogs to accept that it is just :how things are done".

Some have already learned that lesson with only minimal coaching.

Pretty sad the sort of bipods that are bold enough to call themselves free men nowadays.
Worse part is the suckers actually believe it.

[hillbillyreefer]

Certain members, have always posted with an anti firearms tone, very notable one person that has posted several times on this thread. He seems to support the draconian firearms laws employed by the british.

It's unfortunate he never learned English. Too busy polishing his Camilla bobble head.

The ignore button will drop your blood pressure 10pnts.

[hillbillyreefer]

Precedence.

They normalize the practice and trin us like dogs to accept that it is just :how things are done".

Some have already learned that lesson with only minimal coaching.

Pretty sad the sort of bipods that are bold enough to call themselves free men nowadays.
Worse part is the suckers actually believe it.

Exactly. The media helps normalize this behavior, after all the cops are only going after "crazy" gun owners. What most knothead Canadians don't realize is this attack on property is setting the precedence that anything is fair game.

[jungleboy]

Being a Mounty mean's never having to admit you did something wrong.

[rugatika]

Whee-o good thing its an opinion. Happily mine was tested repeatedly, And found to be above average, But thanks for the concern.:)

So just how many times did you have to have your IQ tested until you got the 101??



I'm just kidding....couldn't resist a ball just sitting over the plate like that.



By the way, excellent post Sneeze. This isn't JUST about guns, but about the erosion/elimination of citizen's rights that has been going on for years, and is slowly gaining momentum as more and more people get used to the idea of being supplicants...just like in England (can't help but think it's genetic, since all the good dna jumped ship in the 1700's) :)

[tri777]

* Note to self:
Leave keys to house in door knob during any/all mandatory evacuations*

[bigd]

Being a Mounty mean's never having to admit you did something wrong.

It's Mountie, and hey, the job has to have some perks. :snapoutofit:

[Dozer31]

Did every one get their guns back?

[benamen]

* Note to self:
Leave keys to house in door knob during any/all mandatory evacuations*
Unlocked doors were still kicked in. You are willing to trust the mounties with th3 keys to your house. They would never lose them

[Forest Techer]

“You may seize any item in plain view that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence, if there is a pre-existing lawful reason for intrusion upon the person or premises,” the document claims.

No doubt the Mounties will argue that once they have been asked by local emergency officials to go door-to-door to hunt for survivors, that satisfies the requirement of a “pre-existing lawful reason."

DONT ASK THE MOUNTIES TO DO ANYTHING! They are PASSIVE in this situation. Get on your representatives about when and what they ask the RCMP to do.

Everyone should be clear about the rules of the game here. If you have a safe destroyed and your guns confiscated by the RCMP it would seem like an open and shut cases according to their very own "policy". (I will be as disappointed as anyone if a case where it's been proven an RCMP Officer broke open a safe in order to seize guns was thrown out) Your property does not give you carte Blanche to break the laws. If you leave a handgun on the hood of your truck on your farm 200m off the road while you go to the movies and someone sees it guess what, thats still illegal. Who can see it??? Paperboy, ,mailman, power company, BALLOONISTS!!

People are excitedly conflating 2 issues. (Neither of which this article actually deals with)
1 When and if and under whose authority should there be allowed emergency measures to enter your home without consent.

2 Wether or not any legal ramifications should be considered if a search is done in an unrelated emergency case.

My opinion
1 - never unless human life is directly known to be in peril
2 - if so then it would have to be nuanced, firefighters have reported finding some awful things - and those people would be Scot free to destroy any evidence if it couldn't be reported or acted on.

[roper1]

Not sure if all guns were returned, but absolutely some guns were damaged in the seizure. I know of hunting rifles w big blemishes on stocks & barrels, worse yet very old non-functional heirloom guns w damage. Hard to allocate funds for fix-up when still trying to cover bigger expenses. The boys really messed up & no one believes we are immune in the future.

[Stumpjumper]

“You may seize any item in plain view that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence, if there is a pre-existing lawful reason for intrusion upon the person or premises,” the document claims.

No doubt the Mounties will argue that once they have been asked by local emergency officials to go door-to-door to hunt for survivors, that satisfies the requirement of a “pre-existing lawful reason."

DONT ASK THE MOUNTIES TO DO ANYTHING! They are PASSIVE in this situation. Get on your representatives about when and what they ask the RCMP to do.

Everyone should be clear about the rules of the game here. If you have a safe destroyed and your guns confiscated by the RCMP it would seem like an open and shut cases according to their very own "policy". (I will be as disappointed as anyone if a case where it's been proven an RCMP Officer broke open a safe in order to seize guns was thrown out) Your property does not give you carte Blanche to break the laws. If you leave a handgun on the hood of your truck on your farm 200m off the road while you go to the movies and someone sees it guess what, thats still illegal. Who can see it??? Paperboy, ,mailman, power company, BALLOONISTS!!

People are excitedly conflating 2 issues. (Neither of which this article actually deals with)
1 When and if and under whose authority should there be allowed emergency measures to enter your home without consent.

2 Wether or not any legal ramifications should be considered if a search is done in an unrelated emergency case.

My opinion
1 - never unless human life is directly known to be in peril
2 - if so then it would have to be nuanced, firefighters have reported finding some awful things - and those people would be Scot free to destroy any evidence if it couldn't be reported or acted on.

So we should surrender rights to avoid unresonable search and siezure because of what ifs?

What if we don't want to live in a police state?

[jungleboy]

It's Mountie, and hey, the job has to have some perks. :snapoutofit:

meh; mounty /mountie/ ______,whatever ,it's really just a slang Hollyword anyway.:snapoutofit: yerself:)

[Forest Techer]

So we should surrender rights to avoid unresonable search and siezure because of what ifs?

What if we don't want to live in a police state?

?? I said "never" to the question of when should police be able to search your residence under so called emergency circumstances without consent or a warrant.

But the relevance of what ifs is because everyone is fine with liberty and due process until the wind blows a different way is all. Maybe some are selectively touchy because the current issue is with firearms.

This is the same issue as the speed limits for me, feels like the nanny state being over protective. Would be nice to see the public flex a muscle and move some pieces in the right direction for once (less regulation. Less safety). The RCMP is a political organization. The public could change almost anything if u motivate a majority of people.

[calgarychef]

So when can a local government ask Mounties to " go in." According to what I understand local governments can't call a state of emergency, it's up to federal government to do so. Based on that simple matter the high river gun grab was in fact break and entry.

[calgarychef]

So the Gestapo are still circling the wagons huh? Shameful. I wonder what kind of dangerous surprises they'll find the next time it floods?

[Sneeze]

It's Mountie, and hey, the job has to have some perks. :snapoutofit:

Bold of you to say such a statement.

Were you called to High Riger BigD? I know that some of your friends were.

Curious signature line. Too bad you are too cowardly to ever live it.

[fish gunner]

Bold of you to say such a statement.

Were you called to High Riger BigD? I know that some of your friends were.

Curious signature line. Too bad you are too cowardly to ever live it.

Heck of an assumption .... do you know the member in questions did not make his feelings heard or act in some way to assist those in need??? You know what they say abought assumed ..

[elkhunter11]

The bottom line is that the actions of the RCMP at High River, will result in people's lives being put in danger during future floods or fires. People that don't want their property taken, will either refuse to leave their homes, or they will delay leaving, to pack up all of their firearms to take with them. Eventually, lives will be lost, because the public is more concerned about being robbed by the RCMP ,than being robbed by some other criminals.

[Lornce]

I'm slightly confused here, shouldn't having a locked door in you house also constitute having you firearm locked up? I know we need trigger locks on all firearms but it seems to me that first level of a secure house should actually be enough. There was a time I had a gun cabinet with glass doors for viewing and a lock but the "plain view" now bothers me. I know guys with a locked room in a locked house.

Its getting to the point where the "serve and protect" it turning into find something to charge them with.

[leeaspell]

I'm slightly confused here, shouldn't having a locked door in you house also constitute having you firearm locked up? I know we need trigger locks on all firearms but it seems to me that first level of a secure house should actually be enough. There was a time I had a gun cabinet with glass doors for viewing and a lock but the "plain view" now bothers me. I know guys with a locked room in a locked house.

Its getting to the point where the "serve and protect" it turning into find something to charge them with.

You don't need trigger locks on all firearms for them to be stored legally

[Ricktye]

Appreciate it if you could perhaps give an example of one law MADE by the RCMP? Now, they are charged with enforcing the laws the your political masters (you put them in power) put in place but sorry, no police force can MAKE laws....

If you don't like the laws, I suppose you better elect a different MLA or MP.

R...

Disgusting.

From the words of my grandfather (a retired eps cop) : "what the hell do we need politicians for if the laws are going to be made up by some ******** mountie dictatorship!"

Long past due to send the royal mounting gestapo out of Alberta.

[Dick284]

Put it in as policy.....hmmmmmm

The perfect way to guarantee that when the next disaster happens a whole lot of people will refuse to evacuate.... Thus causing a very interesting scenario......

That there is some serious progress on a contentious issue......NOT!

[midgetwaiter]

If they go back to a home two or three times (as they did in High River), after they have already searched it once and found no survivors, then again they are not there as a result of the emergency. They can’t take stuff.


The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.


And if they target specific homes for warrantless searches because national police computers tell them firearms owners live there, then their purpose for entering the home is not protection of life and limb. It is an illegal search, pure and simple.


There's no evidence of this.

[dmcbride]

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

So why were the houses un-effected by the flood searched?

[midgetwaiter]

So why were the houses un-effected by the flood searched?

To see if they were flooded? I was there the first day residents were allowed to return helping a friend. Her house didn't have any sewer backup but nearly every other house on the street did. There was no way to know this looking at the exterior.

Her house had been entered and the main breaker shut off prior to electrical service being restored to the area. There was also a structural assessment done on all of the houses to make sure they were safe to enter before people were allowed in. Imagine how weak an OSB floor is going to be after being submerged in water for a week.

[sask]

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

This is a joke or sarcasm right ?

Can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that crap they were shoveling out recently

[elkhunter11]

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

Since when have RCMP officers been qualified to judge the structural integrity of a home? What qualifies them to know if it's safe to turn the power back on? This is just another pathetic attempt to justify their actions.

[midgetwaiter]

This is a joke or sarcasm right ?

Can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that crap they were shoveling out recently

No I was there and I know what I saw.

[midgetwaiter]

Since when have RCMP officers been qualified to judge the structural integrity of a home?

They provided escort for the inspectors.

[elkhunter11]

They provided escort for the inspectors.

So why weren't the inspectors present in the videos showing the RCMP removing firearms from homes?

[sask]

They provided escort for the inspectors.

So from the 26th of June until homeowners where allowed back in they escorted them to 1300 homes (and kicked in those doors) ?

Did NOT search for firearms - the muddy tracks through the houses (the ones NOT flooded) including up into 2nd floor rooms , into closets , etc.

I'm not saying that what you said did not happen in some cases .....but not all.

You might want to have a look at a couple of officers notes, obtained under FOI , which indicated multiple entries in unflooded homes, seizure of firearms but NO mention of accompanying anyone

[greylynx]

Put it in as policy.....hmmmmmm

The perfect way to guarantee that when the next disaster happens a whole lot of people will refuse to evacuate.... Thus causing a very interesting scenario......

That there is some serious progress on a contentious issue......NOT!

Good Point Dick.

Another Unintended Consequence of a law.

[sask]

No I was there and I know what I saw.

You were there and saw them hard entry 1300 homes ?

[silverdoctor]

We had many threads on High River, think some need to go back and read them in their entirety.

I remember one thread where a volunteer admitted that there was a door or two kicked in by volunteers. Doors that had been booted already by the RCMP, and the lock still kind of worked.

[hillbillyreefer]

Appreciate it if you could perhaps give an example of one law MADE by the RCMP? Now, they are charged with enforcing the laws the your political masters (you put them in power) put in place but sorry, no police force can MAKE laws....

If you don't like the laws, I suppose you better elect a different MLA or MP.

R...

Three examples.
The original T-97 confiscation
The Swiss Arms classic green reclassification/attempted confiscation
Pots 2007 CZ858 reclassification/attempted confiscation.

You are right about the politicians, time to put a leash on those twits too.

[bison]

Three examples.
The original T-97 confiscation
The Swiss Arms classic green reclassification/attempted confiscation
Pots 2007 CZ858 reclassification/attempted confiscation.

You are right about the politicians, time to put a leash on those twits too.
Good luck!
The majority of Canadians couldn't give a rats azz.
Elections are won in the East were the wussies live.

[hillbillyreefer]

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

If they were so worried about finding survivors or victims why would they slow the search by stealing firearms? If they already stole the firearms why steal the ammo, it's bulky, heavy, and of no use since the firearms are confiscated? Why did they kick in doors of homes of known gun license holders, seems to me they were after guns more than anything. Why did it take a year to come up with Sharpka? With the outrage brewing why not get him to explain things right away, rather than wait a year? Why would an interview with a rabidly anti gun
Media type satisfy you?

The RCMP bragged to the media that they had the town evacuated and were maintaining total control over it. If that was the case why the worry bat inanimate objects, after all no one was there to disturb them? Why would inspectors need a cop to inspect a deserted town, unless the cops were using inspections as a diversion?

[hillbillyreefer]

Good luck!
The majority of Canadians couldn't give a rats azz.
Elections are won in the East were the wussies live.

It's unfortunate but the truth. What is a concern to me is the pro state anti individual rhetoric that is starting to permeate the West.

[Ricktye]

Not laws by any means, but classification of restricted/prohibited weapons. Again, elected government officials made the laws pertaining to the ownership of weapons, not the police. Police just enforce your laws made by your officials. (My officials too I guess! LOL)

R...

Three examples.
The original T-97 confiscation
The Swiss Arms classic green reclassification/attempted confiscation
Pots 2007 CZ858 reclassification/attempted confiscation.

You are right about the politicians, time to put a leash on those twits too.

[benamen]

Not laws by any means, but classification of restricted/prohibited weapons. Again, elected government officials made the laws pertaining to the ownership of weapons, not the police. Police just enforce your laws made by your officials. (My officials too I guess! LOL)

R...


Trouble there is that even if a judge issues a ruling, they will ignore the request. The police don't seem to answer to anyone but themselves.

[midgetwaiter]

If they were so worried about finding survivors or victims why would they slow the search by stealing firearms? If they already stole the firearms why steal the ammo, it's bulky, heavy, and of no use since the firearms are confiscated? Why did they kick in doors of homes of known gun license holders, seems to me they were after guns more than anything. Why did it take a year to come up with Sharpka? With the outrage brewing why not get him to explain things right away, rather than wait a year? Why would an interview with a rabidly anti gun
Media type satisfy you?


This is a prefect example of what causes the problem we have with credibility in the view of the public at large. Congratulations on screwing us over!

If you want to be an effective advocate then raise issues when you can provide evidence. I don't care how deep down in your bones you think the RCMP had a list of gun owners if you have don't have solid evidence to support it then S T F U about it until you get some. What happens when you present a bundle of garbage like that is that your good questions like "Wasn't this a colossal waste of time?" or "Why take the ammo?" are weakened by being associated crap you can't support.

Lets not forget ignoring statements by people like Sharpka that where in a position to provide first hand insight because you don't like the person who asked the question! If Dave Taylor asks the question he must be lying but if somebody like Brian Lilly were to ask the same thing then it's ok?

Keep going and the RCMP will face no accountability for what they did do because you've been busy screaming about a load of paranoid fantasies. This thinking has already destroyed the NFA as a useful advocate, how much farther do you guys want to take it?

Please, just shut up.

[sask]

Please, just shut up.

Unless you are going to answer whether you were there , observed the 1300 hard entries after June 25th and they were right in line with what the RCMP had said..

Personally I'm going to believe the information from AI requests (pretty hard evidence) and info from people I know who have indicated what THEY found in their houses

[hillbillyreefer]

This is a prefect example of what causes the problem we have with credibility in the view of the public at large. Congratulations on screwing us over!

If you want to be an effective advocate then raise issues when you can provide evidence. I don't care how deep down in your bones you think the RCMP had a list of gun owners if you have don't have solid evidence to support it then S T F U about it until you get some. What happens when you present a bundle of garbage like that is that your good questions like "Wasn't this a colossal waste of time?" or "Why take the ammo?" are weakened by being associated crap you can't support.

Lets not forget ignoring statements by people like Sharpka that where in a position to provide first hand insight because you don't like the person who asked the question! If Dave Taylor asks the question he must be lying but if somebody like Brian Lilly were to ask the same thing then it's ok?

Keep going and the RCMP will face no accountability for what they did do because you've been busy screaming about a load of paranoid fantasies. This thinking has already destroyed the NFA as a useful advocate, how much farther do you guys want to take it?

Please, just shut up.

And where is your evidence that none of this happened? Why not just answer he questions I posed instead of telling me to hush up?

Like I asked before, "why a year later is this guy coming forward"?
Why have the RCMP involved been transferred ?

Are you a cop with a vested interest a citizen hoping to gain privilege with the horseshoes?

There is no RCMP accountability to the citizens now. How does a private citizen asking for their employees accountability make them less accountable?

[midgetwaiter]

And where is your evidence that none of this happened? Why not just answer he questions I posed instead of telling me to S T F U?


You can't prove a negative.

[hillbillyreefer]

You can't prove a negative.

OK, care answer any of my other questions? Prove me wrong? Telling me to S T F U isn't going to work.

Here s an easy one for someone as formed as yourself. Why did the CPS NOT go back and kick in doors and steal private property after the flood?

[marxman]

the whole premise of the thread is bogus its too bad we have friends like these

[hillbillyreefer]

the whole premise of the thread is bogus its too bad we have friends like these

Why is wishing to maintain the sanctity of your home bogus?

[BeeGuy]

the whole premise of the thread is bogus its too bad we have friends like these

Indeed, the whole premise of the thread is bogus.

[marxman]

Why is wishing to maintain the sanctity of your home bogus?

thats not what the thread is about. its about the mounties justifying their actions and enshrining them in policy changes. the story you used to support your premise doesnt make either claim.

[BeeGuy]

Yup

Bait and switch.

[Scar270]

Wow, just wow, I cannot believe how delusional so many people can be. The fact that people are buying the boatload of horse dung the RCMP has been selling is absolutely incredible.

If what they did was legitimate, how come no one can show me where the law gives them the power to do this stuff. The emergency act only allows them with a ministerial order, both the minister and the RCMP say that order never came. That means what they did was illegal.

So what are they doing about it? Cover ups and lies, just sticking to standard operating procedure, along with trying to discredit anyone who might cause trouble with that plan.

Remember Buddy Tavares, whom RCMP officer Geoff Mantler kicked in the head? First thing was to run Buddy into the ground claiming domestic issues with his ex-wife, after all no one wants to stick up for a wife beater, oh except his ex-wife who showed up to say they still have coffee and get along great. Oops, better lie and cover up some more.

It's so sickening, I even know LEO's who find what the RCMP do sickening, so it's certainly not just a few of us with the tinfoil on too tight.

However I am probably wasting my breath, as I am sure most on here will be fine with whatever the RCMP do, even while it's there teeth being booted in, after all, it's for the greater good, and their teeth are not as important as the RCMP's right to govern without question.

The RCMP and Politicians are doing their damndest to turn us into a third world s***hole. i would rather speak up and try to change it before they succeed, then wait and say, I told you so, as the secret police drag me away.

Just the stolen and destroyed ammunition should have us up in arms, if the firearms were never touched.

[hillbillyreefer]

thats not what the thread is about. its about the mounties justifying their actions and enshrining them in policy changes. the story you used to support your premise doesnt make either claim.

It's what it has morphed into.

You are correct though. Much like Mounties were at one time a trustworthy force to be proud of, they have morphed into something much more malignant.

You didn't answer the question, "why is wishing to maintain the sanctity of your home bogus?"

[Moosejuice]

It's unfortunate but the truth. What is a concern to me is the pro state anti individual rhetoric that is starting to permeate the West.

The orice we pay for having all those jobs.
Albertans didn't double this provinces population over the last 20 or so years and all those new people brought the very ideas with them that had failed them in their places of origin already.

[hillbillyreefer]

The orice we pay for having all those jobs.
Albertans didn't double this provinces population over the last 20 or so years and all those new people brought the very ideas with them that had failed them in their places of origin already.

It never ceases to amaze me how humans love to soil their own nests, move and repeat.

[Scar270]

It never ceases to amaze me how humans love to soil their own nests, move and repeat.

It amazes me how tolerant we are of letting others come soil in our nests, then move on and repeat.

[Sneeze]

If what they did was legitimate, how come no one can show me where the law gives them the power to do this stuff. The emergency act only allows them with a ministerial order, both the minister and the RCMP say that order never came. That means what they did was illegal.



Even a minister can not order the arbitrary suspension of the Charter of Rights and freedoms.

Welcome to the new Alberta.

[Scar270]

Very true, the minister authorize the use of items pertaining to the disaster. They could take a dozer from a construction yard to make a fire guard in a fire, but they can't take your skidoo.

So short of a zombie apocolypse, I am not sure the minister could ever authorize confiscation of firearms under the emergency act.

[375ph]

Where does it say that?? Please highlight anywhere it says they can take legal property stored by the book?

If something is owned by you AND illegal AND in plain view, then yes they don't give a hoot about your "property" rights. (Take note illegal drug aficionados)

The last 3-5 paragraphs are quite clear on what is considered plain view and how nothing in this policy would protect RCMP if they were guilty of breaking into a gun safe and confiscating legal private property. Or other possible high river scenarios

If anything this policy will help the average joe or Sally (or criminal) organize better storage methods in case of emergencies. Ie not in plain sight if it's illegal!

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.:thinking-006:

[leeaspell]

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.:thinking-006:

Maybe in a six foot thick cement bomb shelter might be sufficient, but if you had high explosives that could be considered easily broken in to as well, so you may as well just give them up next time the water starts to rise or the forest fire gets close to town. At least that way they won't be rolling around in the bottom of a tin boat when the rcmp steal them for safe keeping or whatever reason they come up with next

[rugatika]

Very true, the minister authorize the use of items pertaining to the disaster. They could take a dozer from a construction yard to make a fire guard in a fire, but they can't take your skidoo.

So short of a zombie apocolypse, I am not sure the minister could ever authorize confiscation of firearms under the emergency act.

I hope they can't confiscate them in a zombie apocalypse....That's when I'll need them the most!! :sHa_shakeshout:

[bison]

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.:thinking-006:Weld the safe closed ;)

Seriously,..why not just take the bolts out and be done with it?

[blackpheasant]

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.:thinking-006:

I leave one by the back door with a full clip handy, always have always will :)

Whats a trigger lock...

[elkhunter11]

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.:thinking-006:

My non restricted firearms have never had a trigger lock installed, and as long as I own them, they never will.

[Forest Techer]

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.:thinking-006:

I don't get it?

Did you read the article? Are you aware what's mandatory as far as safe storage? That's all that's required. Anything that's legally stored or even just out of plain view is exempt from this article, this policy and the point of the thread.

[hillbillyreefer]

I don't get it?

Did you read the article? Are you aware what's mandatory as far as safe storage? That's all that's required. Anything that's legally stored or even just out of plain view is exempt from this article, this policy and the point of the thread.

Except stuff they removed from closets and drawers in HR. What about the ammo they confiscated and destroyed?

What are criteria to keep the horseshoes from stealing and destroying your ammunition?

[fish gunner]

Except stuff they removed from closets and drawers in HR. What about the ammo they confiscated and destroyed?

What are criteria to keep the horseshoes from stealing and destroying your ammunition?

Stored securely, simple stuff . Want your house made to minimum code or would you like the minimum requirement exceeded. I like to be above the required standard myself.

[Scar270]

It's one thing to exceed the minimums, it's another to have the RCMP break down your door and take your property that meets those requirements. Not to mention now write it into policy that they intend to lay charges while in your home without a warrant, or as near as I can tell, any real legal grounds to be there.

Checking for structural integrity doesn't seem to be legal grounds to me. Why can't a home owner come open the door for a structural inspection.

They claimed to be breaking down doors because they didn't have time to wait for locksmiths, yet they had time to catalogue guns and escort inspectors through the house? A lot of stories that add up to just a whole lot of conflicting lies.

[fish gunner]

It's one thing to exceed the minimums, it's another to have the RCMP break down your door and take your property that meets those requirements. Not to mention now write it into policy that they intend to lay charges while in your home without a warrant, or as near as I can tell, any real legal grounds to be there.

Checking for structural integrity doesn't seem to be legal grounds to me. Why can't a home owner come open the door for a structural inspection.

They claimed to be breaking down doors because they didn't have time to wait for locksmiths, yet they had time to catalogue guns and escort inspectors through the house? A lot of stories that add up to just a whole lot of conflicting lies.

Secure is secure, irrelivant of law or interpretation. Bolted to the floor behind 3" of steel thats secure .a trigger lock in the closet is safe. Lets not forget houses with out firearms were also entered. Why are we not highlighting that aspect also.

[elkhunter11]

Stored securely, simple stuff . Want your house made to minimum code or would you like the minimum requirement exceeded. I like to be above the required standard myself.

Legal is legal, whether you meet the minimum legal requirement, or whether you exceed the minimum legal requirement.

[BANG]

Or how about we take it one step further, regardless of how they where stored and say its my stuff in my house you take it and you are a god damn thief .
What goes on in my home is no ones damn business but my own.I yearn to live in a free country one day.

Yes all this bull**** shoved down our throats gets frustrating as hell.

[fish gunner]

Legal is legal, whether you meet the minimum legal requirement, or whether you exceed the minimum legal requirement.

Yep right till the river is lapping at the second floor stairs and a few houses move down stream . Dont forget some thanked the police. its basied on pov.

[fish gunner]

Or how about we take it one step further, regardless of how they where stored and say its my stuff in my house you take it and you are a god damn thief .
What goes on in my home is no ones damn business but my own.I yearn to live in a free country one day.

Yes all this bull**** shoved down our throats gets frustrating as hell.

Oh so if an emergency occurs say the century flood they will just let you deal with your stuff with no insurance or such to . Because its your stuff no one else's responsibility. Hmm wonder how many doors the armed forces breeched. Lets look.http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/22/in-flood-ravaged-high-river-canadian-soldiers-find-something-resembling-a-war-zone . Hmm war zone that sound a little out of every day high river.

[Forest Techer]

Except stuff they removed from closets and drawers in HR. What about the ammo they confiscated and destroyed?

What are criteria to keep the horseshoes from stealing and destroying your ammunition?

See you are the one derailing your own thread. Read the policy and tell me where it says they are allowed to do any of that stuff??? It specifically spells out parameters that would be needed to allow any confiscation. The question should be "under what circumstance, if any, could ammunition by itself be seized under the proposed policy?"

When I said take measures in a previous post regarding storage, partially what I meant was along the lines of putting a seal on a closet if You evacuate, surveillance camera onto remote HD, Taking photos etc. so that if police were to go rogue You would have pretty damning evidence. You shouldn't be obliged to do this, but if someone has trouble sleeping at night worrying about what the RCMP May do to you this seems like cheap peace of mind.

[roper1]

See you are the one derailing your own thread. Read the policy and tell me where it says they are allowed to do any of that stuff??? It specifically spells out parameters that would be needed to allow any confiscation. The question should be "under what circumstance, if any, could ammunition by itself be seized under the proposed policy?"

When I said take measures in a previous post regarding storage, partially what I meant was along the lines of putting a seal on a closet if You evacuate, surveillance camera onto remote HD, Taking photos etc. so that if police were to go rogue You would have pretty damning evidence. You shouldn't be obliged to do this, but if someone has trouble sleeping at night worrying about what the RCMP May do to you this seems like cheap peace of mind.

This so clearly shows the problem. Why on Earth should we distrust the ones sworn to protect us; because they have proven themselves untrustworthy time & again. The parallels between the RCMP and the defunct Canadian Airborne are clear. The military is highly respected without the Airborne & lots of city police forces are respected because they are accountable. Time for a change IMO

[elkhunter11]

Yep right till the river is lapping at the second floor stairs and a few houses move down stream

Which does nothing to change the fact, that meeting the minimum legal standards is still legal.

Oh so if an emergency occurs say the century flood they will just let you deal with your stuff with no insurance or such to . Because its your stuff no one else's responsibility.

If you went way beyond the minimum legal standard, and trigger locked your firearms, and left them in a safe in the basement, nobody including the RCMP would bother to try and steal them, and they would be ruined. Going above the minimum legal standard wouldn't have helped prevent that.

Hmm wonder how many doors the armed forces breeched.

If you had bothered to read the statements posted by one of the actual soldiers that was in High River during the flood, he stated that the military did not break into any homes, and they did not remove any firearms.

Yet again, your arguments are totally lacking, where logic is concerned.

[fish gunner]

Which does nothing to change the fact, that meeting the minimum legal standards is still legal.



If you went way beyond the minimum legal standard, and trigger locked your firearms, and left them in a safe in the basement, nobody including the RCMP would bother to try and steal them, and they would be ruined. Going above the minimum legal standard wouldn't have helped prevent that.
Far from true lots of water proof safe's


If you had bothered to read the statements posted by one of the actual soldiers that was in High River during the flood, he stated that the military did not break into any homes, and they did not remove any firearms.
Alleged ,your doing it again

Yet again, your arguments are totally lacking, where logic is concerned. and you miss the fact that every house on the cordon was breeched nulifyes the targeting of firearm owner , the link I just posted suggests the armed forces were assisting the RC's searching houses. And logically how many fire arms were saved ny the actions of the RCMP. NOW THATS LOGIC.

[bobalong]

Which does nothing to change the fact, that meeting the minimum legal standards is still legal.



If you went way beyond the minimum legal standard, and trigger locked your firearms, and left them in a safe in the basement, nobody including the RCMP would bother to try and steal them, and they would be ruined. Going above the minimum legal standard wouldn't have helped prevent that.



If you had bothered to read the statements posted by one of the actual soldiers that was in High River during the flood, he stated that the military did not break into any homes, and they did not remove any firearms.

Yet again, your arguments are totally lacking, where logic is concerned.

Do not waste your time on him, his arguments are just that, arguments. He is the same as BigDaddyBadger, MtnGiant and a host of others, they don't really care about anything they discuss, there only goal is to aggravate as many members on here as they can. It wont be long and he will end up the same way as the others "banned".

For a while they just tip toe on the edge of being punted, but they just cant help themselves, and eventually their ignorance does them in, they cross the line, and they are gone............or completely ignore members like him, and they will move onto another message board.

[elkhunter11]

And logically how many fire arms were saved ny the actions of the RCMP. NOW THATS LOGIC.

By the time that the RCMP removed any firearms, the flood was over a week old, and if the water hadn't reached the forearms yet, it wasn't likely going to reach them. As well, the city was being guarded by the RCMP. Therefore, in reality, if the firearms had been left where the RCMP had found them, they would have remained there in the same condition as the RCMP found them, which in many cases, was in better condition, that they were, when they were recovered from the RCMP.

[fish gunner]

By the time that the RCMP removed any firearms, the flood was over a week old, and if the water hadn't reached the forearms yet, it wasn't likely going to reach them. As well, the city was being guarded by the RCMP. Therefore, in reality, if the firearms had been left where the RCMP had found them, they would have remained there in the same condition as the RCMP found them, which in many cases, was in better condition, that they were, when they were recovered from the RCMP.link on dates please.

[leeaspell]

Secure is secure, irrelivant of law or interpretation. Bolted to the floor behind 3" of steel thats secure .a trigger lock in the closet is safe. Lets not forget houses with out firearms were also entered. Why are we not highlighting that aspect also.

May as well outlaw having pl/pd on a vehicle, cuz 10 million liability and full coverage is better. Legal is legal, why is that such an issue with you. If you want to go above and beyond and be a model boy scout then by all means go ahead, but don't throw the guy under the bus who is also being legal, but not legal enough by your opinion

[elkhunter11]

link on dates please.

Do you mean to tell us that you are here arguing the details, and you can't even find the dates for yourself?

[benamen]

and you miss the fact that every house on the cordon was breeched nulifyes the targeting of firearm owner , the link I just posted suggests the armed forces were assisting the RC's searching houses. And logically how many fire arms were saved ny the actions of the RCMP. NOW THATS LOGIC.
I guess if you mentioned how many guns were stolen from the other towns during the flood, your suggestion that the police saved some firearms might hold water. But if the police would have allowed the home owner back into their homes as was done in other flooded communities, theft would not have been a concern either.

[fish gunner]

Do not waste your time on him, his arguments are just that, arguments. He is the same as BigDaddyBadger, MtnGiant and a host of others, they don't really care about anything they discuss, there only goal is to aggravate as many members on here as they can. It wont be long and he will end up the same way as the others "banned".

For a while they just tip toe on the edge of being punted, but they just cant help themselves, and eventually their ignorance does them in, they cross the line, and they are gone............or completely ignore members like him, and they will move onto another message board.

I care vehemently about this . I was front line in another city on these days trying to save my friends house . Sadly we failed ,so ive just spent the last year helping rebuild a basement . We dealt with the RC's for three days, professional and helpful. So the fact that less than 1000 firearms were secured in a city of near 15000 speaks to the reality of mostly loose firearms bing secured what percent were extensively searched for. how many were on kitchen tables , beds ect ect. Lets not forget the Rc's were also thanked by a few. So im not here for a quarrel. im here for the truth. I understand situational command to an extent make a decision and act ... its that simple. What is being suggested is a gun grab , I suggest the armed forces and the RC's have the means to apprehend every fire arm in high river over the petiod of time in question this is not the case and closely reflects the securement of loose firearms as suggested. Did they over step , you bet . was it illegal ..thats for the courts to decide. I allegedly suggest.

[fish gunner]

May as well outlaw having pl/pd on a vehicle, cuz 10 million liability and full coverage is better. Legal is legal, why is that such an issue with you. If you want to go above and beyond and be a model boy scout then by all means go ahead, but don't throw the guy under the bus who is also being legal, but not legal enough by your opinion secure is not an opinion its a big steel box bolted to the ground or floor. Secure is not a legalize thing its chrome vadnium and stainless. Not one secure fire arm was touched by the RC'S in high river. Its a fact .

[elkhunter11]

. Lets not forget the Rc's were also thanked by a few.

So out of a city of around 15,000, a "few" people thanked the RCMP. That leaves well over 14,000 people that didn't thank them. And a lot more than a few people showed up at the meeting after the flood, to express their displeasure concerning the actions of the RCMP at High River.

secure is not an opinion its a big steel box bolted to the ground or floor. Secure is not a legalize thing its chrome vadnium and stainless. Not one secure fire arm was touched by the RC'S in high river. Its a fact .

Fortunately, where the legal storage of firearms is concerned, your version of secure is totally irrelevant, and meaningless. Nobody cares what you think, all that matters is that a person stores his firearms according to the actual regulations.

[hillbillyreefer]

See you are the one derailing your own thread. Read the policy and tell me where it says they are allowed to do any of that stuff??? It specifically spells out parameters that would be needed to allow any confiscation. The question should be "under what circumstance, if any, could ammunition by itself be seized under the proposed policy?"

When I said take measures in a previous post regarding storage, partially what I meant was along the lines of putting a seal on a closet if You evacuate, surveillance camera onto remote HD, Taking photos etc. so that if police were to go rogue You would have pretty damning evidence. You shouldn't be obliged to do this, but if someone has trouble sleeping at night worrying about what the RCMP May do to you this seems like cheap peace of mind.

Anything a Canadian “knowingly exposes to the public or abandons in a public place,” is deemed to be in plain view. Or anything a “peace officer … observes by use of one or more of his senses from a lawful vantage point,” is in plain view.

So now the question becomes is kicking in the front door of a private home after flood waters have receded a lawful act? I will guarantee that during the next disaster the horseshoes will claim it is, in the name of public safety, think of the children, blah, blah, blah.

What gave them the right to seize and destroy ammunition? This policy or the previous "make it up as you go" policy doesn't give anyone the right to steal and destroy legally owned property, not even ammunition.

Why would any reasonable person suggest that security devices and cameras need to be installed in order to protect the average joe from the police? Sounds like a place I don't want to live.

On that note I will not S T F U as a couple nanny statists on this board would like, I will continue to fight for my freedoms.

[Scar270]

Care to back up your definition of secure with a definition from the firearms act or another piece of legislation that defines that as secure?

Until you define that you can't determine if any "secure" guns were taken, as you will just change your definition.

I feel a trigger locked gun in a closet in a locked house is secure, but obviously you do not, and I can't find a legal definition, so ball is in your court, back up your opinion of secure with legal definition in a related piece of legislation or case law.

[leeaspell]

secure is not an opinion its a big steel box bolted to the ground or floor. Secure is not a legalize thing its chrome vadnium and stainless. Not one secure fire arm was touched by the RC'S in high river. Its a fact .

*[Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms] 5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

*(a)********** it is unloaded;

(b)********** it is

(i)************* rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,*

(ii)******** rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

*(iii)**** stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and*

(c)********** it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.*

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.



So who gets to decide when legal isn't legal anymore.

[fish gunner]

So out of a city of around 15,000, a "few" people thanked the RCMP. That leaves well over 14,000 people that didn't thank them. And a lot more than a few people showed up at the meeting after the flood, to express their displeasure concerning the actions of the RCMP at High River. my post is in relation to firearms owners. Tough situation as the link I posted suggested the city was in shambles from flood damage the RC's became the scape goat . Imo.

[fish gunner]

Care to back up your definition of secure with a definition from the firearms act or another piece of legislation that defines that as secure?

Until you define that you can't determine if any "secure" guns were taken, as you will just change your definition.

I feel a trigger locked gun in a closet in a locked house is secure, but obviously you do not, and I can't find a legal definition, so ball is in your court, back up your opinion of secure with legal definition in a related piece of legislation or case law.

See that the great thing about secure its not a legal definition it takes plasma or air arc to disprove . The RC's weren't draging around a genny and a compressor cutting open secure :)
Containers to acces firearms . That was easy ..wheres the button for that. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[elkhunter11]

Tough situation as the link I posted suggested the city was in shambles from flood damage the RC's became the scape goat . Imo.

The RCMP were not a scapegoat in this case, because it was their very own actions that put them in the situation that they are now in. That doesn't at all match the definition of a scapegoat.

[benamen]

To me it now seems like High River was a testing site for this new policy. Go in, do the deed and see what needs to be tweaked before being policy.

[Scar270]

See that the great thing about secure its not a legal definition it takes plasma or air arc to disprove . The RC's weren't draging around a genny and a compressor cutting open secure :)
Containers to acces firearms . That was easy ..wheres the button for that. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

So you don't care what the law was, or that many of these owners had the safes in the basement, and had to remove the firearms to a higher floor because of the flood.

Realistically you just are in favor of a police state. I would suspect you were one of the ones there booting in doors, but some very large directive seems to have come down the pike preventing any officer in canada from commenting, so obviously you are just a wannabe horseman, not the real thing.

[fish gunner]

*[Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms] 5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

*(a)********** it is unloaded;

(b)********** it is

(i)************* rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,*

(ii)******** rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

*(iii)**** stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and*

(c)********** it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.*

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.



So who gets to decide when legal isn't legal anymore. people who secure there firearms not store them . It was a flood. some % of the homes were breeched from flooding a some % of the fire arms were in plain sight some percentage of home owners asked for firearms to be retrived. Some % threatend the police at the cordon. So what we have left is is a small percent of disgruntaled flooded breeched firearms owners and some joe high river flood victims rightfully upset . But it was not some huge gov /redford /liberal gestapo gun grab because if it was the RC'S would have got every single firearm in high river secure or not.

[elkhunter11]

some percentage of home owners asked for firearms to be retrived

Where is your proof of that claim? Or is that just another of your many baseless statements that you can't back up?

[Scar270]

So their competence level is how you decide whether something is planned or not, wow, what deduction.

So I guess if I break into a bank and only get 10% of the money, a crime never really occured. Remind me not to hire you as my defense lawyer.

[leeaspell]

people who secure there firearms not store them . It was a flood. some % of the homes were breeched from flooding a some % of the fire arms were in plain sight some percentage of home owners asked for firearms to be retrived. Some % threatend the police at the cordon. So what we have left is is a small percent of disgruntaled flooded breeched firearms owners and some joe high river flood victims rightfully upset . But it was not some huge gov /redford /liberal gestapo gun grab because if it was the RC'S would have got every single firearm in high river secure or not.

Where do you keep coming up with this word "secure"? The only mention is a secure locking device, therefore a gun on a bed with a trigger lock (a SECURE locking device) was perfectly legal.

[fish gunner]

Where is your proof of that claim? Or is that just another of your many baseless statements that you can't back up? just like always http://blog.highrivercoalition.com/. Every time you suggest that it takes 1.1 seconds on google. Do you just watch the news that tells you what you want to hear . I remember this from a year ago . Gezze . Amatures. If had any comouter skills past my crap typing skills id embarrass most of you. Baseless once again .

[fish gunner]

Where do you keep coming up with this word "secure"? The only mention is a secure locking device, therefore a gun on a bed with a trigger lock (a SECURE locking device) was perfectly legal.

Because you dont get secure has nuthin to do with book, law, RC, bs. Its a state of being its secure becuse unless you bring high energy tools ITS STILL SECURE. see how that works .

[elkhunter11]

just like always http://blog.highrivercoalition.com/. Every time you suggest that it takes 1.1 seconds on google. Do you just watch the news that tells you what you want to hear . I remember this from a year ago . Gezze . Amatures. If had any comouter skills past my crap typing skills id embarrass most of you. Baseless once again .

After reading the entire page that appeared at the link you provided, I could not see one instance where a single firearms owner specifically asked the RCMP to retrieve their firearms from their home for them, as you claimed in a previous post.

Because you dont get secure has nuthin to do with book, law, RC, bs.

Well at least you mentioned both secure and bs in the same sentence, which is fitting, since your secure nonsense is total bs.

[leeaspell]

Because you dont get secure has nuthin to do with book, law, RC, bs. Its a state of being its secure becuse unless you bring high energy tools ITS STILL SECURE. see how that works .

So, if I follow the law, I'm wrong, because if you bring tools to breach my front door that means I'm not following the law? I don't see how that works. If I follow the law how it's written, then some how I'm still wrong? See how that works. If I lock my guns in a safe and you use C4 to blow it apart, does that mean I didn't meet safe storage? Again, no such thing in Canadian law as "secure" storage


You're trying to make up laws that don't exist

[fish gunner]

So their competence level is how you decide whether something is planned or not, wow, what deduction.

So I guess if I break into a bank and only get 10% of the money, a crime never really occured. Remind me not to hire you as my defense lawyer. what . No its a big conspiricy against gun owners remember . You dont understand the have the power like the military. You can whine and pis and moan all you want . What they say goes in these emergancy situation. If as suggested police and mmilitary swept the cordoned area of town. Unsecure firearms were encountered. These firearms were secured.this covers 90%+ of the fire arms secured in the flood affected cordon. The military poster here suggested the put some firearms out of sight . Then relayed this info to police presto explained to the 99%. Awe heck now what. What it really shows is most of the folks on the other side of this subject have never experienced high stress emergancy eveac recovery situations. Life limb safety. " Sir no threat to life in dwelling . Copy .Sir no injuries or evacuees in dwelling. Copy . Sir I have unsecured firearms in dwelling . Copy , wait out. Transport in bound secure firearms to transport . Copy. yes sir copy secure firearms to transport. Thats it folks no ifs no conspiracy no big gov / Rc aagenda. So simple if you've been in similar areas.

[fish gunner]

So, if I follow the law, I'm wrong, because if you bring tools to breach my front door that means I'm not following the law? I don't see how that works. If I follow the law how it's written, then some how I'm still wrong? See how that works. If I lock my guns in a safe and you use C4 to blow it apart, does that mean I didn't meet safe storage? Again, no such thing in Canadian law as "secure" storage


You're trying to make up laws that don't exist

Its not a law . Its reality ,the fire arms in high river stored in big heavy steel boxes that were bolted internaly to the floor were untouched by Rc , what part of that are you missing . Legal stored safe fire arms were then secured by the RC'at another location approx 1000 In number. One is safe and perfectly legal under normal day to day circumstances. The high river flood was not normal, was it.
One is3" thick steel with vadinum pins and does not give two monkeys what is normal ,legal or what the RC'S think . Because secure is not an interpretation. Its a state of being.

[elkhunter11]

what . No its a big conspiricy against gun owners remember . You dont understand the have the power like the military. You can whine and pis and moan all you want . What they say goes in these emergancy situation. If as suggested police and mmilitary swept the cordoned area of town. Unsecure firearms were encountered. These firearms were secured.this covers 90%+ of the fire arms secured in the flood affected cordon. The military poster here suggested the put some firearms out of sight . Then relayed this info to police presto explained to the 99%. Awe heck now what. What it really shows is most of the folks on the other side of this subject have never experienced high stress emergancy eveac recovery situations. Life limb safety. " Sir no threat to life in dwelling . Copy .Sir no injuries or evacuees in dwelling. Copy . Sir I have unsecured firearms in dwelling . Copy , wait out. Transport in bound secure firearms to transport . Copy. yes sir copy secure firearms to transport. Thats it folks no ifs no conspiracy no big gov / Rc aagenda. So simple if you've been in similar areas.

So can you in any way provide credible data to back up the numbers that you are throwing around? You know, the 90%, and the 99%? Of course you can't, because you made them up. just like pretty much every supposed statistic that you post, on any topic. Between your made up statistics, your unproven claims, your ridiculous comparisons, and your horrible spelling and sentence structure, how could you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

[leeaspell]

Its not a law . Its reality ,the fire arms in high river stored in big heavy steel boxes that were bolted internaly to the floor were untouched by Rc , what part of that are you missing . Legal stored safe fire arms were then secured by the RC'at another location approx 1000 In number. One is safe and perfectly legal under normal day to day circumstances. The high river flood was not normal, was it.
One is3" thick steel with vadinum pins and does not give two monkeys what is normal ,legal or what the RC'S think . Because secure is not an interpretation. Its a state of being.

So reality is, following the law means nothing if the rcmp come in to your house? There is no clause in the firearms act for natural disasters, what part of that are you missing.

[fish gunner]

So can you in any way provide credible data to back up the numbers that you are throwing around? You know, the 90%, and the 99%? Of course you can't, because you made them up. just like pretty much every supposed statistic that you post, on any topic. Between your made up statistics, your unproven claims, your ridiculous comparisons, and your horrible spelling and sentence structure, how could you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?
You know this is the the internet right. This is opinion based conversation. This is not english 40.oh and bring up some stats that make mine wrong its that simple ... but mostly you cant . Becuse ive been in these situations on an occasion. After thst its just good old probability. In you own mind what would you do , in the home owners place, in the soldiers boots . In the Rc's shoes. Honestly, in a flooded city. You would just Iignore firearms on a kitchen table thou every bit of your traing suggests secure all fire arms?? Home owner grabs the five or six rifles /shot guns out of the nonwater proof safe in the basement /garage. Throws them on the bed ?? Soldier puts them out of sight passes on the info . It human to act in a prescribed manner in stressful dangerous situations. I know the on the grownd head RC made the call. Dont care he had a job to do ..it got done well . Crappy deal for the folks front doors. They got new ones, most need new ones after being under 2'-7' of water. If a single legal fire arm was kept by the police the media frenzy would be off the chart ..but that did not happen 99% of all firearms were returned. I belive iirc one or so were not llegally owned and were detained.

[fish gunner]

So reality is, following the law means nothing if the rcmp come in to your house? There is no clause in the firearms act for natural disasters, what part of that are you missing. the rc werent knoking and asking to come in . The floated up to the top stair in some cases and waded around the ground floor. Its a special curcumstance out side of the relm of normal . Your making up situations. c4 lol . Were discussing what actually happened in high river. Many homes there was no front door. Many homes the front door was the last thing worth worring abought. in reality when 3'-7 of flood waters cover a town the EMERGANCY services do what is required to get the job done . An unexpected situation arose unsecure firearms. A commander on the ground made a call . Thats the nuts and the bolts.

[Forest Techer]

Anything a Canadian “knowingly exposes to the public or abandons in a public place,” is deemed to be in plain view. Or anything a “peace officer … observes by use of one or more of his senses from a lawful vantage point,” is in plain view.

So now the question becomes is kicking in the front door of a private home after flood waters have receded a lawful act? I will guarantee that during the next disaster the horseshoes will claim it is, in the name of public safety, think of the children, blah, blah, blah.

What gave them the right to seize and destroy ammunition? This policy or the previous "make it up as you go" policy doesn't give anyone the right to steal and destroy legally owned property, not even ammunition.

Why would any reasonable person suggest that security devices and cameras need to be installed in order to protect the average joe from the police? Sounds like a place I don't want to live.

On that note I will not S T F U as a couple nanny statists on this board would like, I will continue to fight for my freedoms.

I only suggested taking other measures for protection for anyone paranoid enough to think that the RCMP want to go out of their way to gather guns. And also because it states so clearly how to avoid being charged. If you like to keep a loaded shotgun in your home while you go shopping (illegally), leaving it under the mattress would probably clear the "in plain view" requirement and you may continue breaking the law and have a decent defence for when the horshoe bogie men spring into your home under an elected officials direction.

You have all the right in the world to complain about it. My issue is about your completely misleading thread. The policy is pretty straight forward vanilla pudding.

Again nothing gave them the right to steal secured firearms or legally owned property. NOTHING in the policy allows it either. But it does clarify that if you, your mayor, your MLA ask the RCMP or fire dept to secure homes and they see something illegal that it is open to a charge. (Maybe a great question to pose a political candidate, when if ever would u sanction entering people's homes without permission, if they say anything but " never" then they can look for a vote elsewhere)

If your house is on fire they don't wait to get a hold of you before going inside. Even though an Uzi on the kitchen table is irrelevant to a flood or fire it is policy to charge you and confiscate it.

If you think this is unacceptable there are many libertarians and people that have illegal paraphernalia in their home that will agree with you.

I'm standing up for people that want to discuss how misleading and full of grandstanding faux crisis this article is. Net neutrality and moths are more frightening.

[Tactical Lever]

what . No its a big conspiricy against gun owners remember . You dont understand the have the power like the military. You can whine and pis and moan all you want . What they say goes in these emergancy situation. If as suggested police and mmilitary swept the cordoned area of town. Unsecure firearms were encountered. These firearms were secured.this covers 90%+ of the fire arms secured in the flood affected cordon. The military poster here suggested the put some firearms out of sight . Then relayed this info to police presto explained to the 99%. Awe heck now what. What it really shows is most of the folks on the other side of this subject have never experienced high stress emergancy eveac recovery situations. Life limb safety. " Sir no threat to life in dwelling . Copy .Sir no injuries or evacuees in dwelling. Copy . Sir I have unsecured firearms in dwelling . Copy , wait out. Transport in bound secure firearms to transport . Copy. yes sir copy secure firearms to transport. Thats it folks no ifs no conspiracy no big gov / Rc aagenda. So simple if you've been in similar areas.

You dont understand the have the power like the military

^^^ What the heck does that even mean?? You would think a loyalist would at least have access to a dictionary!

Maybe I'm just waaay too "high speed, low drag" but I have difficulty discerning how that was a "high stress emergancy (sic) eveac (sic) recovery situations (sic)" Of the many, many day to day jobs of para military organizations, this ranks up there with elementary school field trip.

You could have 50 lbs. of crack on the bed (and maybe you do), but that still does not give the RCs free reign to break, enter, search and steal.

In legal circles, this is called "illegal entry", and "unlawful search and seizure".
Those are our own dang Canadian laws! Bunch of Pinkos!

Fact of the matter is, guns were searched for, as not all the homes were broken into (or maybe they were just real lucky!), and private property was taken. In the hopes that it would not be collected back, I suppose.

Then the excuses came, and words like "valuables" and "unsecured" started to get thrown around.

If there was a concern, about stuff in plain sight, they would not have had to break down doors (which kind of had the opposite effect of security), and actively look for stuff. And if protecting valuables was a concern, they would have taken jewelry, electronics, and other chatel for "safekeeping".

[elkhunter11]

You know this is the the internet right. This is opinion based conversation. This is not english 40.oh and bring up some stats that make mine wrong its that simple ... but mostly you cant . Becuse ive been in these situations on an occasion. After thst its just good old probability. In you own mind what would you do , in the home owners place, in the soldiers boots . In the Rc's shoes. Honestly, in a flooded city. You would just Iignore firearms on a kitchen table thou every bit of your traing suggests secure all fire arms?? Home owner grabs the five or six rifles /shot guns out of the nonwater proof safe in the basement /garage. Throws them on the bed ?? Soldier puts them out of sight passes on the info . It human to act in a prescribed manner in stressful dangerous situations. I know the on the grownd head RC made the call. Dont care he had a job to do ..it got done well . Crappy deal for the folks front doors. They got new ones, most need new ones after being under 2'-7' of water. If a single legal fire arm was kept by the police the media frenzy would be off the chart ..but that did not happen 99% of all firearms were returned. I belive iirc one or so were not llegally owned and were detained.

I am not the one throwing out numbers, and making up stats, you are, so you are the one that should be providing actual data to back up your claims. And you are correct, this is the internet, where anyone can make up whatever story they please, and they can throw out any numbers they please, in an attempt to pass them off as actual facts. Fortunately ,most people are smart enough to read posts with grade two or three level spelling, and grammar, and endless unproven claims, and soon realize that they are nothing more than fiction, dreamed up by someone looking for attention, but unfortunately, a few more trusting people, are a little slower to recognize this type of nonsense, when they see it. Some people will simply employ the ignore function, to avoid this nonsense, but others will continue reading it, for entertainment, just as people used to read dime store novels, realizing that most of the content was not true, but in in a way, it was entertaining, sort of like watching the three stooges on television.

[marxman]

dont argue with fishgunner. he is simply an unleashed ego. he is clogging up the forum

[super7mag]

dont argue with fishgunner. he is simply an unleashed ego. he is clogging up the forum

Exactly , he conviently leaves out the fact that the town was under lock down and in care and control of the RCMP. Those scarey trigger locked guns laying on the bed were such an extreme threat a week after high water , they may have just jumped up and randomly started to fire on there own...
He also forgets the only looters in town were guys with a badge and an attitude.
But water proof ( laughable) safes should be a must then there would be no trouble they would just kick in your door and make sure your waterproof( haha) safe was still unbreached...
They were WRONG , man up and admit instead of using back door policy's to justify it , what a joke..

[bobinthesky]

Where is your proof of that claim? Or is that just another of your many baseless statements that you can't back up?

For what it's worth, and I'm not going to get involved in this fight, I personally know of one person who phoned the RCMP to come get his guns. He was out of town and they were valuable collector guns that he was no longer able to store securely in his basement and had been moved up stairs.

[elkhunter11]

For what it's worth, and I'm not going to get involved in this fight, I personally know of one person who phoned the RCMP to come get his guns. He was out of town and they were valuable collector guns that he was no longer able to store securely in his basement and had been moved up stairs.

Fishgunner has provided zero proof to back up his claim. Out of 15,000 people, you claim to know of one person that asked for the RCMP to retrieve their firearms, but once again, no actual proof has been posted. I am not doubting you, but rather I am pointing out that no proof of this has been posted.I do know that if I had valuable collector firearms, I would rather leave them unsecured in a locked house, surrounded by the RCMP than have them beat up by the RCMP as they tossed them in a boat, and then vehicles, and then to their receiving area.

[sask]

dont argue with fishgunner. he is simply an unleashed ego. he is clogging up the forum

Ignore function comes in handy here......now if you guys would quit quoting him :)

[hillbillyreefer]

Ignore function comes in handy here......now if you guys would quit quoting him :)

X2

[silverdoctor]

All I can do is shake my head in disappointment at some of the postings here, same old go round.

At what point do RCMP policies become law? They are creating a policy to allow officers to seize (oops, secure) firearms that are in plain sight - but plain sight could be a closet or panty drawer. Wow. Policy will dictate that if they are in a home legally, they can search for firearms and if they find one - that's plain sight.

Slave lake Alberta... Yes, I realize the LGR was still alive during the fire.

“We are not just entering houses arbitrarily, but we do have a duty to ensure the safety of the area,” said Tim Taniguchi with Slave Lake RCMP. “We’re also assisting fire services with entering homes that pose a fire risk.”


So... Were people OK with the police using the LGR data to locate guns, enter homes and seize private property during the fire?


High River Alberta...

From NFA:

President Clare continued, "To date the NFA has identified three instances where long-gun registry data was used or suspected of being used by police after Parliament passed this law ordering that long-gun information be destroyed: the Ottawa area in June of 2012, High River, Alberta in June of 2013, and Fredericton, New Brunswick in June of 2013. The only case we are at liberty to make public at this time is the incident in High River that we reported on December 17, 2013." https://nfa.ca/news/nfa-fifth-letter-rcmp-public-complaints-commissioner


Do people still believe that police no longer have the data from the LGR? While yes, the data is old, how many have actually gotten rid of all their guns since the LGR was destroyed?

[hillbillyreefer]

All I can do is shake my head in disappointment at some of the postings here, same old go round.

At what point do RCMP policies become law? They are creating a policy to allow officers to seize (oops, secure) firearms that are in plain sight - but plain sight could be a closet or panty drawer. Wow. Policy will dictate that if they are in a home legally, they can search for firearms and if they find one - that's plain sight.

Slave lake Alberta... Yes, I realize the LGR was still alive during the fire.



So... Were people OK with the police using the LGR data to locate guns, enter homes and seize private property during the fire?


High River Alberta...

From NFA:




Do people still believe that police no longer have the data from the LGR? While yes, the data is old, how many have actually gotten rid of all their guns since the LGR was destroyed?

Don't forget that part of c-19 requires the destruction of the LGR records. Why do we allow the RCMP to ignore direct orders we have given them? These guys think they are above the law and we let them get away with.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c19&Parl=41&Ses=1
Clause 29 of Bill C-19 requires the Commissioner of Firearms to ensure the destruction, as soon as feasible, of all records in the registry related to the registration of non-restricted firearms, and all copies of those records under the Commissioner’s control. As well, all chief firearms officers must ensure the destruction, as soon as feasible, of all such records and copies under their control. Clause 29 specifies that sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives Act and sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of these records.

[Vigilante]

It is blatantly obvious to me that Fish gunner has no clue about what went on around here last year. I assure you, no RCMP members were looking around in 3ft deep water for guns, they were only looking on the dry levels, and they were only looking after the water had receded, and anyone that had been trapped, would have already been deceased. Sure there was still 6ft of water in my basement when they broke into my house, but they didnt look through my basement. They looked only on the upper levels.

I am not going to get into this whole stupid argument, but I will say this: Insurance has paid me for a majority of my losses, my basement can be re built, my items can be replaced. What cannot be fixed is my faith that the RCMP are here to help me be safe. I do still believe that there are good people within the RCMP that want to help people, but the organization as a whole has a separate agenda.

[mich]

It is blatantly obvious to me that Fish gunner has no clue about what went on around here last year. I assure you, no RCMP members were looking around in 3ft deep water for guns, they were only looking on the dry levels, and they were only looking after the water had receded, and anyone that had been trapped, would have already been deceased. Sure there was still 6ft of water in my basement when they broke into my house, but they didnt look through my basement. They looked only on the upper levels.

I am not going to get into this whole stupid argument, but I will say this: Insurance has paid me for a majority of my losses, my basement can be re built, my items can be replaced. What cannot be fixed is my faith that the RCMP are here to help me be safe. I do still believe that there are good people within the RCMP that want to help people, but the organization as a whole has a separate agenda.

Well said, but you are wrong on one point.... they did wade into basements to "find" unsecured guns. We did see this in 4 or 5 homes.

[Kanonfodder]

There is some obvious trolling and a ton of questionable posts, keep it respectful please we are monitoring this thread closely

[coastalhunter]

So is there a 'law' or 'policy' that prohibits one from bringing your firearms with you?

[hillbillyreefer]

So is there a 'law' or 'policy' that prohibits one from bringing your firearms with you?

Restricted=yes
NR=no

[ctd]

Firearms were secured. That is what the RCMP do when they enter a house to which they see firearms in the open.

No solid proof that the LGR was used at all. Just some speculation based on some notes or radio recording stating "the list" or words to that effect which could have been made earlier by Officers or Military who originally entered the house.

Very few firearms were not returned to the owners. If they were legal and the person had the proper licence they were returned.

No one ask the RCMP to secure their Firearms, which a few did. Put in for freedom of information act and request the info and you may see that there were a few requests.
People also didn't ask them to rescue themselves from the roof top, or the river as the RCMP Officers put themselves in jeapordy as they entered the water to save a few lives.

I also guess that the people who threatened to storm the Barricade with force wasn't asked for also. Yet the Police maintained their composure and did not over react That was on the news channel.

The end of the day the whole High River flood was a complete disaster in regards to response and implementation of emergency plans.

Hopefully we don't forget the issues that came forward during the High River Flood. One of the biggest issues is who is in control and who makes the initial decision to ask for help under the Emergency Measures act.

As we seen in Manitoba recently the system works and works well if you have a plan and everyone involved is notified properly.

One thing that bothers me over the whole High River case is why is it only a big deal there. Why have Police not secured Firearms elsewhere in the province during the flood. Or else where such as Manitoba's floods? Or did they and we just don't hear of it.

[wwbirds]

they were unavoidably detained for two weeks looking for a small boy and his grandparents. then those dang rural breakins and thefts got in the way of finalizing the gun conspiracy. Might be delayed again due to fatal accidents and taking drunks off the road so you and your family are safe. dont worry as soon as they have a bit of spare time I sure they will get right on it.

Geesh I know as many LEO hunters as not and this theory of the grand conspiracy is getting ridiculous. OK maybe someone made a bad decision in High river move on get over it. Probably wont happen again and they are implementing policy to be consistent in all situations. they are not passing gun seizure laws!
Most LEO err on the side of public safety so maybe someone made a bad call. I remember firing a lady for insubordination when I was 27. think on it now and should have given her another chance. had I investigated a missing child and found out that the suspect had murdered him I think I might be tempted to make another bad/rash decision. Not sure how I could cope with that job I grew quite jaded with the general public just from seeing the fraud side of criminal investigations not sure how they cope day to day with the POS that they have to deal with daily. I would need a team of shrinks just to function in that position this week.
Then come on a hunting forum to relax and have to read all the arm chair theories and couch and TV cop wannabees.
Respect works both ways and is often noticeably absent here.

[silverdoctor]

CTD, the RCMP's own words were "seized", only changed after people got upset.


People may want to have a read, this will be the new policy in the near future.

https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/RCMP%20ATI%20Response%20-%20Draft%20Emergency%20Policy%20for%20Alberta%20-%20June%2025%202014.pdf

[elkhunter11]

OK maybe someone made a bad decision in High river move on get over it. Probably wont happen again

The "bad decision" as you call it, infringed severely on the rights of many citizens, it's far too serious, to just be forgotten. Someone does need to be held accountable. As for " probably won't happen again" that just isn't good enough. In fact, if nobody is held accountable, I see them trying the same nonsense again in the future, because they know that they can get away with it.

[Ken07AOVette]

Are you guys going to keep beating the stuffing out of this dead horse? There hasn't been anything new on this subject for a year.

Around and around we go
http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb461/bumblingbear/2.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/bumblingbear/media/2.jpg.html)

And around
http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/vv70/titillatingtina/Ani-onmerrygoround.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/titillatingtina/media/Ani-onmerrygoround.gif.html)

And around
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo181/whatever511_2008/121m.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/whatever511_2008/media/121m.gif.html)

and around
http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd360/faye00701/Cute/k52-5.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/faye00701/media/Cute/k52-5.gif.html)

And around
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r63/ssecnirp_album/7xo2fc6.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/ssecnirp_album/media/7xo2fc6.gif.html)

[220swifty]

Why do you suppose there has been nothing new in a year, Ken ? There is supposed to be a formal inquiry , which was supposed to be done already, but the completion date has been pushed back a few times now. Perhaps they are hoping we get tired of beating the horse and go away?

I haven't commented much on the subject lately, but I am no less ****ed off about it than I was a year ago.

[elkhunter11]

There hasn't been anything new on this subject for a year.

The inquiry was supposed to be concluded by the end of last year. It appears that the government is hoping that if they delay things long enough, people will forget about the entire incident, and they can just forget about it themselves. Some of us just don't want to make it that easy for them.

[IR_mike]

It was a test, a toe in the water so to speak to see what they could get away with.

[hillbillyreefer]

We should not forget, and sure as heck shouldn't allow it to happen again.

[Tactical Lever]

So is there a 'law' or 'policy' that prohibits one from bringing your firearms with you?

Restricted=yes
NR=no

Not exactly. The law defines a legal place of storage as your dwelling. The wording is a little ambiguous, but this can mean any temporary residence.

If I was evacuated, you can bet that I would be bringing my restricted guns in accordance with the laws. You need a LATT, and the guns to stay in your dwelling place where ever that is.

[Tactical Lever]

It was a test, a toe in the water so to speak to see what they could get away with.

We should not forget, and sure as heck shouldn't allow it to happen again.

For sure!

[hillbillyreefer]

Not exactly. The law defines a legal place of storage as your dwelling. The wording is a little ambiguous, but this can mean any temporary residence.

If I was evacuated, you can bet that I would be bringing my restricted guns in accordance with the laws. You need a LATT, and the guns to stay in your dwelling place where ever that is.

Lol.

"We are experiencing heavier than normal call volume please stay on the line your estimated time is 55 minutes"
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.
.
.
.
.
hello
I'd like an LTATT so I can bug out of my flood zone.
I'm sorry sir our policy does not cover that as a valid reason for transport.
Is there anything else I can deny you today?

[Tactical Lever]

Lol.

"We are experiencing heavier than normal call volume please stay on the line your estimated time is 55 minutes"
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.
.
.
.
.
hello
I'd like an LTATT so I can bug out of my flood zone.
I'm sorry sir our policy does not cover that as a valid reason for transport.
Is there anything else I can deny you today?

Ha, ha! :)

Funny, but not entirely accurate. What you are thinking of is a Short Term Authorization to Transport.

What I am talking about is your current (hope you keep it current) Long Term Authorization. Which covers you to go to matches, gunsmiths, ranges and your "dwellings".

[hillbillyreefer]

May work in Alberta, but I doubt it would in Ontario or Quebec. They have a hard enough time getting to a range out there.

I've never seen other dwellings listed on one, just your primary place of residence. I've heard of guys being denied having two dwellings listed, but it is possible I suppose. I'm sure there is no law against it, just more RCMP "policy".

[Tactical Lever]

May work in Alberta, but I doubt it would in Ontario or Quebec. They have a hard enough time getting to a range out there.

I've never seen other dwellings listed on one, just your primary place of residence. I've heard of guys being denied having two dwellings listed, but it is possible I suppose. I'm sure there is no law against it, just more RCMP "policy".

I found reference to it, in some NFA reading. And again, online. Could not find anything on a couple of the law websites.

It would be pretty hard to take part in a competition out of town without it.

As its Federal law, it should be pretty universal. But of course they mess with them a lot (maybe a little) more out there.

The argument could be made, that in an emergency the guns would not be in a secure location being left your normally secure house.

The law is supposed to rule in such cases in favour of attempting to do the right thing. Supposed to, anyway...

[silverdoctor]

Well, in case people don't feel like reading, gun grabbing will be the norm during any disasters or evac so you better get used to it from the sounds of it. It also seems that everything that the RCMP did in High River will be deemed legal, if you're expecting accountability, forget it.

From https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/RCMP%20ATI%20Response%20-%20Draft%20Emergency%20Policy%20for%20Alberta%20-%20June%2025%202014.pdf

If the RCMP have to go door to door searching, anything in plain view (or searched for) is fair game and fully legal. It happened in High River, it happened in Slave Lake. It's going to happen again.

Some interesting points...

1.5.2.6 authorize the entry into any building or land by ANY person in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program: authorize the entry into any building or on any land, without warrant, by any person in in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program;



4.6.1.5 Plainview Doctrine. You may seize any item in plain view that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence if:
4.6.1.5.1 there is a pre-existig lawful reason for intrusion upon the person or premises.
4.6.1.5.2 the discovery of the item is inadvertant, and
4.6.1.5.3 the item is immediately apparent as incriminating evidence
4.6.1.6 If it is determined by the member that an item, in the public interest, must be secured for safekeeping, member will document.

Interestingly... From http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/powers-e.htm#8.%20Plain%20View%20Doctrine - POLICE POWERS AND DRUG-RELATED OFFENCES

8. Plain View Doctrine

A search warrant only allows a police officer to search the areas and for objects set out in it. The plain view doctrine, however, allows a police officer who is lawfully at a locale to seize items that constitute evidence of a crime. "This is what is really meant by the ‘plain view doctrine’; it must be an item which is in the plain view of the officer and something which he has observed during the course of a proper search."() The doctrine depends on the officer being lawfully at the locale. The Code and the CDSA have codified the plain view doctrine with respect to searches under the respective legislation. This doctrine is another example of a warrantless search authorized by law.





4.6.1.1 If damage is caused to premises being searched, under no circumstance will members make any commitment, either directly or indirectly, that the RCMP will make restitution.

5.1 Do not compel or arrest an adult person for failing to leave their private property when they are subject to an evacuation order.
5.2.1 leave the area specified in the evac orderk, he or she will not be permitted to return to his or her property (guess this is how they get away with spike strips)
5.2.2 basically if your life is imperiled, you're on your own.
5.3.1 When a person is suffering from a mental illness, you can arrest and remove. (At what point do RCMP feel they are trained to see if someone is mentally disabled?)
5.3.2 Basically they can take your kids and put them in the care.

[1quietbear*]

When did we elect the RCMP to create laws in this country? We didn't! We elected politicians to represent us! To make laws. So get off your butts and call, email or write a letter to every politician you can. We as Albertans and as Canadians need to stand up and be heard before this private government army drags us into a police state. We should have provincial and municipal policing that is in place to protect and represent us as citizens, not a group of paramilitary bullies intent on dictating and trampling our rights and freedoms.

P.S. here's food for thought. On any given day, the RCMP can most likely mobilize more combat ready personnel(ERT) than the canadian military. And they are under the control of a private, unelected, government appointed leader. Who do you think he takes his orders from and where do his loyalties lay. I doubt they lay with us. Read your charter of rights and freedoms! It's not just about gun ownership. That's just the card they show to keep they sheep scared and quiet. It's time to strip this private army of its massive budget and reinvest it in our actual military and local police forces. Who I'm sure would be glad to serve us without kicking in our doors and stealing our personal property

[silverdoctor]

When did we elect the RCMP to create laws in this country? We didn't! We elected politicians to represent us! To make laws. So get off your butts and call, email or write a letter to every politician you can. We as Albertans and as Canadians need to stand up and be heard before this private government army drags us into a police state. We should have provincial and municipal policing that is in place to protect and represent us as citizens, not a group of paramilitary bullies intent on dictating and trampling our rights and freedoms.


They aren't making laws, they seem to be cherry picking here and there from existing laws. Now if they make it a policy to take guns in their definition of "in plain sight" in a state of emergency, it's legal.


Accountability? It'll be out the window from the looks of it.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT (Alberta Queen's printer)
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf

Part 3
Liability Protection for Emergency Service Providers

Minister
27
No action lies against the Minister or a person acting under the Minister’s direction or authorization for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under this Act or the regulations.
2010 c5 s11

Local authority
28
No action lies against a local authority or a person acting under the local authority’s direction or authorization for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under this Act or the regulations during a state of local emergency.
2010 c5 s11

Search and rescue organization
29
No action in negligence lies against a search and rescue organization, the directors of that organization or a person acting under the direction or authorization of that organization for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while acting under an agreement between that organization and the Minister.
2010 c5 s11


Still, questions remain unanswered.

[fish gunner]

When did we elect the RCMP to create laws in this country? We didn't! We elected politicians to represent us! To make laws. So get off your butts and call, email or write a letter to every politician you can. We as Albertans and as Canadians need to stand up and be heard before this private government army drags us into a police state. We should have provincial and municipal policing that is in place to protect and represent us as citizens, not a group of paramilitary bullies intent on dictating and trampling our rights and freedoms.

P.S. here's food for thought. On any given day, the RCMP can most likely mobilize more combat ready personnel(ERT) than the canadian military. And they are under the control of a private, unelected, government appointed leader. Who do you think he takes his orders from and where do his loyalties lay. I doubt they lay with us. Read your charter of rights and freedoms! It's not just about gun ownership. That's just the card they show to keep they sheep scared and quiet. It's time to strip this private army of its massive budget and reinvest it in our actual military and local police forces. Who I'm sure would be glad to serve us without kicking in our doors and stealing our personal property 28, 000 total employees for the Rc's .60,000 serving soldiers. so given the fact that a tiny portion of the RC'sare combat perped and a huge portion of the forces are combat preped. you are out by a little.

[mally]

Dangerous policy to have in place