Lethbridge Police need lessons on laws regarding transporting firearms

[elkhunter11]

Not true, but lets take this case as an example.
If he was not speeding.......



He obviously does not know how speed limit signs work, so is there any chance at all he became belligerent with the Officer?




One of the biggest responses constantly on every forum, is 'we are only hearing one side of the story'.

Did the OP get snotty with the Officer? Was he Yes Sir No Sir or was it more '@!%%@#&&*@@'


see where I am going with this?

Besides, there are only 2 forces that are out there for our protection, the Military and Law Enforcement.

I have NOTHING but respect for LEO's that diligently do their duty to the best of their ability and do not abuse their power. The problem with this is.....?

All of which is no excuse for a police officer not knowing the transport laws for firearms, and for trying to B.S. someone about what the laws actually are. And if the officer does know the laws, and is simply trying to make up laws in order to bully the OP, then he needs to be disciplined for his actions.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

All of which is no excuse for a police officer not knowing the transport laws for firearms, and for trying to B.S. someone about what the laws actually are. And if the officer does know the laws, and is simply trying to make up laws in order to bully the OP, then he needs to be disciplined for his actions.

I do agree with you.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

All of which is no excuse for a police officer not knowing the transport laws for firearms, and for trying to B.S. someone about what the laws actually are. And if the officer does know the laws, and is simply trying to make up laws in order to bully the OP, then he needs to be disciplined for his actions.

I have had many issues with police over the years. I have never been belligerent with them, but have questioned their knowledge of the laws they are trying to intimidate me with. The majority back down when they realize you won't be bullied by them, and are not scared of them. In my case, most of the times I have had to deal with them is because they only got one side of the story too, and they took action based on that one side. (ex wife is a habitual liar)

Also helps when you write down their name and badge number and explain that there will be a formal complaint filed in regards to their action.

[missingtwo]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I do agree with you.

There you go.

[Ebrand]

A $150 Speeding fine is for 25kmh over.

Glad the officer is now aware that trigger locks are not needed to transport non- restricted firearms.

Everyone has to learn somehow.

[elkhunter11]

Glad the officer is now aware that trigger locks are not needed to transport non- restricted firearms.

Everyone has to learn somehow.

When you are being paid to enforce the laws of the land, you should know what they are. You shouldn't have to learn from someone that you pull over to issue a speeding ticket to.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

When you are being paid to enforce the laws of the land, you should know what they are. You shouldn't have to learn from someone that you pull over to issue a speeding ticket to.

X2

[Ebrand]

[/QUOTE] Glad the officer is now aware that trigger locks are not needed to transport non- restricted firearms.

Everyone has to learn somehow.[/QUOTE]

Guess my sarcasm did not make through.....

[Coops]

The officer not knowing the firearms act to the letter is on par with you not knowing you can't hit 80 before the sign.

You've spent how many years driving and took the course/test to do so and you don't know all of the rules so perhaps you should cut him some slack. Maybe not be so hypocritical.

[elkhunter11]

The officer not knowing the firearms act to the letter is on par with you not knowing you can't hit 80 before the sign.

You've spent how many years driving and took the course/test to do so and you don't know all of the rules so perhaps you should cut him some slack. Maybe not be so hypocritical.

Given that the officer was not fined and issued demerit points because of his ignorance of the law, it was the officer that was being hypocritical.


Of course the officer could have simply let the speeding ticket go, as an apology for his unacceptable behavior, and to show that he wasn't being hypocritical.

[Coops]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Given that the officer was not fined and issued demerit points because of his ignorance of the law, it was the officer that was being hypocritical.


Of course the officer could have simply let the speeding ticket go, as an apology for his unacceptable behavior, and to show that he wasn't being hypocritical.

That makes no sense. The officer may not have known the detail of that particular law but he obviously found out what it was and left it alone. On the other hand he caught someone speeding. Black and white, it's his job to uphold the laws. What you're implying is that you don't want him to do his job.

There is the human element to this though, I've been caught several times and got off with a lesser fine or none at all. The trick to that is being nice. If you're being rude in trying to prove your point that trigger locks aren't required than why should he be nice back in waiving the speeding ticket fine?

I'm willing to bet that the Officers in that area have to put up with a lot of crap. Acting civil would probably go a long way with those guys.

[elkhunter11]

The officer may not have known the detail of that particular law but he obviously found out what it was and left it alone

Only after he had made unwarranted accusations.

What you're implying is that you don't want him to do his job.

I am implying that he should be doing his job, which means knowing the laws that he is paid to uphold. Making unwarranted accusations is not doing his job.

If you're being rude in trying to prove your point that trigger locks aren't required than why should he be nice back in waiving the speeding ticket fine?

And making unwarranted accusations about the OP supposedly violating the Firearms Act wasn't being rude?

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

All of which is no excuse for a police officer not knowing the transport laws for firearms, and for trying to B.S. someone about what the laws actually are. And if the officer does know the laws, and is simply trying to make up laws in order to bully the OP, then he needs to be disciplined for his actions.

I agree he should know the transport laws, they aren't that complicated and he wears a side arm doesn't he?? Which means he has a PAL...and has passed a firearms course??

Just as bad...had a BC CO was giving me grief for having my rifle in the cab of the truck instead of in the canopy.....

[roper1]

The fact that he was set up in the transition speed zone implies quota, not public safety. Maybe his boss wanted him there to pay for policing or donuts and he was doing as instructed. Does he really need to hear yes sir, no sir just because he has the right to pull you over then incorrectly harass you about trigger locks and firearm transport. Having spent lots of my carefree youth saying yes sir, no sir trying to save my butt and because my parents taught me respect makes me wonder. So we still live in the best province in the best country, is there not still a lot of room for improvement in policing? Traffic divisions are easy money. My son & I had some nice luck on a morning hunt a few days ago so we field dressed the WT buck and were taking it home to hang, then headed to a different Muley spot for the aft. Cops followed us down the highway very closely with a lot of blood on the tailgate of my truck. Passed us a mile out of town then pulled into Timmie's. Lots of vehicle and property theft around and the response is ' Phone your insurance agent'. I believe our police need to go back to Policing that serves citizens instead of revenue creation and not knowing the laws they are hassling us about. Just my rant.

[elkhunter11]

and he wears a side arm doesn't he?? Which means he has a PAL...and has passed a firearms course??

Actually many police officers and members of the military, don't have PALs, because they don't need a PAL to possess their issued firearm.

If you're being rude in trying to prove your point that trigger locks aren't required than why should he be nice back in waiving the speeding ticket fine?

To add to that, if the officer had not made the unwarranted accusations, the OP would not have had to inform the officer that his interpretation of the law was incorrect. If the officer had known the law, the entire conversation, would not have taken place.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

* EDIT *

Point of this post was made by another above (concerning Peace Officers and Military not requiring a PAL).

Please disregaurd this post.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually many police officers and members of the military, don't have PALs, because they don't need a PAL to possess their issued firearm.

Then that should be changed.....especially if your writing tickets to others in possession of firearms. I didn't know that either.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

This is just one small reason as per why the entire Canadian firearms scheme needs to be scrapped. Firearms ownership is surely the proverbial canary in the coalmine for the civil rights of a Nation. Double (and more in some areas of Law) standards are plentiful in Canadian Law in general, not only in the realm of Firearms.

As per the original/actual point of this thread - Indeed, the officer was obviously off base on the Transport of a Firearm aspect, to be sure. That said, everyone has an off day and he has a tough job.

Fight the ticket if it is possible for you to do so (can afford the time off work, et al). File a formal complaint if you wish.