Calgary Herald - Guns taken by RCMP from High River Homes

[Stik'em]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Umm, seriously? Seized or secured, the cops still removed them without due cause. How it is worded makes no difference. And I don't know about you, but I don't have my serial #'s memorised and I'd be surprised if many of the people affected do either.

It makes a big difference, by definition Seizing an item you probably will never get it back, but securing an item is to hold for a time to be released later.

Ya they probably didnt have a warrant, but I would rather any police force to take any firearm from my house for safe keeping that wasnt locked in a gunsafe then a criminal who has snuck in when no is obviously around and steals it, to be used in a crime later. In one area in med hat we were patrolling had two burglaries with in 8hrs, police caught the one guy and then a second looter showed up in the area but was chased off.

I take a photo of every item I have that's serialized item and number it's on a memory card in case I lose all my house and all possessions I have a proof. These are in a fire proof/water proof safe.

I not saying what they did was right or wrong, but I do think its being blown out of proportion, that the media is wording this wrong and everyone is getting each other wound up by throwing accusations.

Stik'em

[Old Hunter]

There will be lots of questions in the follow-up to these seizures.

Here are a few.



Supreme Court of Canada
Report citation [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51
Case number 25023

Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: A search, to be reasonable under s. 8 of the Charter, must be authorized by law, the law itself must be reasonable, and the search must be carried out in a reasonable manner. Because a warrantless search has been held to be prima facie unreasonable, once the accused has demonstrated that the search was warrantless, the Crown has the burden of showing that the search was, on the balance of probabilities, reasonable.

Searches and seizures must be authorized by law and can fail to meet this requirement if any one of three conditions is not met. First, the state authority conducting the search must be able to point to a specific statute or common law rule that authorizes the search. Second, the search must be carried out in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements the law provides. Third, a search must not exceed its scope as to area and as to the items for which the law has granted the authority to search.

We are told the search was for people and pets - we are to believe the seizure of firearms was incidental to the search for people and pets because they were in plain view and posed a threat to public safety.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

In Shea, the Ontario High Court followed the "plain view" doctrine cases in the United States in deciding that, once a police officer is lawfully in residential premises, he has the right to seize articles such as narcotics that are in plain view.

THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

When it comes to firearms, is a threat to public safety demonstrably less under an evacuation order than any given day in the neighborhood? Why this question? Because not much public is present. The streets are covered in water, homes submerged, police, military and emergency responders are the only persons allowed to be present.

Is that group "the public"?

Alternately, if the concern is looters obtaining the firearms and then becoming a threat are we to believe that the ability to restrain residents from gaining access is not also sufficient to control potential looters?

Have there been any looting incidents before or after the firearm seizures?

Compare the flood circumstance to a long weekend camping trip period - no police, military hovering over the neighborhood and lots of public present with how many firearms seizures happening?

How many firearms seized from High River residents over the past 5 years (arbitrary period) due to concern for public safety?
How many seized during the flood period?
Is the public safety rationale supported by the circumstances?



IMPLEMENT PLAN

According to the Alberta law cited, the entry could be considered lawful if done for certain reasons. One of those reasons is to IMPLEMENT the emergency plan or program.

Does the emergency plan for High River include seizure of firearms?

SAFE STORAGE REGULATIONS

we all know the locked room difficult to break into regulation.

Does using police forced entry techniques to gain entrance demonstrate it was difficult to break into the homes?

Were the firearms that were in plain view meant to be in storage like that? It is no offense to have firearms in your residence, examining, cleaning, showing, displaying etc. How many of these situations occured as a direct result of being ordered to evacuate immediately versus an actual contravention of the Safe Storage Regulations?

Anyway, just a lot of questions. I'm sure there will be answers in the fullness of time. Speaking of time, Time for lunch.

[billie]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

A simple statement to clear the air and calm nerves would do a tonne of damage control no? Never said they need to hold a press conference.

LC

Yeah, that ougha calm everyone down here! Talk about more gasoline on the fire, 10 more pages of the evil LYING cops.

Sorry Lefty, but that really is a bit funny here on Anarchists Online. I know what you meant though .

I'm sure everyone will get their possessions back. If not, THEN get grouchy about it.

[stuckincity]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

Here's a thought.

If you were a non firearm owning voter and you see comments on Sun news or whatever full of wild paranoid speculation what would you think? RCMP officers taking a cutting torch to safes etc, etc.

I'm a non-firearm-owning voter for reasons that have nothing to do with lib-left "gun control" or "registration". I'm not one of those; and I'm sickened by the whole fiasco.

[Stik'em]

I'm going to guess this is all stemming from the fact our military/RCMP were entering homes looking for residents who either didn't leave or couldn't (like elderly and disabled) which they did my buddy found some old women walking around without any pants on.

So of course they are going to search the whole house, they'll find weapons and store them til everyone can go home. Ie you prove you live a 345 1st oh here are your guns we held for you.

Stik'em

[elkhunter11]

I'm sure everyone will get their possessions back. If not, THEN get grouchy about it.

Keeping quiet when things like this happen, does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Making this a public issue, and getting the federal government involved, may prevent it from happening again.

[michaelmicallef]

I'm not sues if this was already mentioned but this was not a spur of the moment decision as my neighbour that is a prison guard said that this is part of the "state of emergency plan" to seize firearms to prevent problems with guns. He mentioned this to me a week or so before the floods. This can happen any time a state of emergency is declared. So just be aware that this is what may happen to your guns if you are in this type of situation. Be warned! The police's job is to protect the public. Not taking sides just making a point.

[elkhunter11]

I'm not sues if this was already mentioned but this was not a spur of the moment decision as my neighbour that is a prison guard said that this is part of the "state of emergency plan" to seize firearms to prevent problems with guns. He mentioned this to me a week or so before the floods. This can happen any time an state of emergency is declered. So just be aware that this is what may happen to your guns if you are in this type of situation. Be warned!

If I am ever facing evacuation, I will make sure that none of my firearms are left behind for the RCMP to find.

[unclebuck]

Listening to "Red Ali" & the gestapo and their "sound" reasoning reminds me a saying of my late father's. "I have heard ducks fart in shallower water than that."

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

A simple statement to clear the air and calm nerves would do a tonne of damage control no? Never said they need to hold a press conference.

LC

Redford addressed it in her last press conference, it's been on 660 news every 10 minutes today. The RCMP reports to the province, it's been addressed by the province.

[EORE]

My SIL called an hour ago and I find out my brother is in custody in clagary for firearms charges from high river. This is what his wife tell me. They took him from work. He is a machine operator removing flood debris. My uncle is criminal defense attorney. What can I do?

[jethunter]

Originally Posted by Silverado04

What exactly are the cops doing right now beside keeping people from their homes?

Apparently they are looting....

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by EORE

My SIL called an hour ago and I find out my brother is in custody in clagary for firearms charges from high river. This is what his wife tell me. They took him from work. He is a machine operator removing flood debris. My uncle is criminal defense attorney. What can I do?

Your uncle should be the one you are asking , not us!
Cat

[Warrior]

Really....you need to ask us what to do????

I would suggest, now keep in mind this is just my simple mind..... BUT I would suggest she calls your Uncle. Just sayin

Originally Posted by EORE

My SIL called an hour ago and I find out my brother is in custody in clagary for firearms charges from high river. This is what his wife tell me. They took him from work. He is a machine operator removing flood debris. My uncle is criminal defense attorney. What can I do?

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by EORE

My SIL called an hour ago and I find out my brother is in custody in clagary for firearms charges from high river. This is what his wife tell me. They took him from work. He is a machine operator removing flood debris. My uncle is criminal defense attorney. What can I do?

Get him in touch with your uncle.

[BANG]

Originally Posted by EORE

My SIL called an hour ago and I find out my brother is in custody in clagary for firearms charges from high river. This is what his wife tell me. They took him from work. He is a machine operator removing flood debris. My uncle is criminal defense attorney. What can I do?

Do you know what he was charged with?

[billie]

Originally Posted by BANG

Do you know what he was charged with?

Being a donkey

You do know who eore was right?

[a little redneck]

And no wonder people don't trust cops and the RCMP have a bad reputation. They should be out getting bad guys not marching around with their own agenda violating taxpayers. Americans are not so crazy for having their bug-out sites and stash of goodies.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Stik'em

It makes a big difference, by definition Seizing an item you probably will never get it back, but securing an item is to hold for a time to be released later.

Ya they probably didnt have a warrant, but I would rather any police force to take any firearm from my house for safe keeping that wasnt locked in a gunsafe then a criminal who has snuck in when no is obviously around and steals it, to be used in a crime later. In one area in med hat we were patrolling had two burglaries with in 8hrs, police caught the one guy and then a second looter showed up in the area but was chased off.

I take a photo of every item I have that's serialized item and number it's on a memory card in case I lose all my house and all possessions I have a proof. These are in a fire proof/water proof safe.

I not saying what they did was right or wrong, but I do think its being blown out of proportion, that the media is wording this wrong and everyone is getting each other wound up by throwing accusations.

Stik'em

You are definitely saying it's right.

And...this is not getting blown out of proportion.

This is serious.....why do you think this thread is still alive and growing fast.

Also....if Harper is now involved....then you can make darn sure that this is serious business.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by billie

Being a donkey

You do know who eore was right?

Oh! how nice and supportive. EORE may not big a big mouth with only 25 posts, but he did join back in 2012. Doesn't make him a troll, he's just asking, maybe just maybe he can't get a hold of the uncle lawyer right now. Ease up buddy..

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Keeping quiet when things like this happen, does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Making this a public issue, and getting the federal government involved, may prevent it from happening again.

Absolutely agree. I call it "an ounce of prevention" nothing more, nothing less.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by twofifty

You might be watching too much American TV, where the US Marshall rides into town to make things right.

In Canada, it's Martial Law. Martial, from Mars the God of War.

Ooops....you are right......sp error.....damn smart phone.

But you still get my point

[shep dog]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Try again.

First off....Firearms fall under criminal law as does the whole search and siezure thing and criminal law is the domain of the federal government. Provinces and municipalities have nothing to do with it.
That is in no small part why Quebec got turned down by the courts the other day.

Second... while certain provisions of the charter can be temporarily suspended... there is a decission making process that must occur and that process involves federal... elected officials.... not Barney Fife and his band of merry men at the local cop-shop.

As for the charter itself.... you can thank that piece of Liberal trickery for the loss of many of your rights and for most of the legal pitfalls that lawful owners must be wary of now.
Before that charter... there could be no crime where harm could not be demonstrated. Now... we have all sorts of law related to circumstances where no harm has occured to persons or property.

Those laws provided someone a convienient excuse to further infringe upon rights and enter homes looking for firearms that were not stored in a manner that satisfied them.

Now there exists the possability that people could be charged if a weapon was found out in the open or if one was found loaded.

Understanding that I do not support keeping loaded firearms in the home... I do not think it is the right of government to dictate how firearms will be kept in my home or yours either.
Nor do I believe it is right for anyone to undertake a warrantless search of your home unless there is a reasonable demonstrable and immediate threat to public safety or health... related to that search.
Even a warranted search is limited and must be specific.... they cannot search your underwear drawer and refrigerator looking for a stolen car.

Finally... if the crown does choose not to charge those owners whose weapons were found insecure or loaded... it is only because they know darn well that their eviddence was obtained through unlawful means.

A decission to not go ahead with charges should be a green light for anyone interested in a class action against the crown.

Yes, criminal law is under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The state of emergency didn't change that. The provincial and municipal governments haven't trespassed on the Federal governement's jurisdiction.

Clearly, in this case, based on their involvement, the decision to declare a state of emergency is/was supported by all three levels of govenrment.

The RCMP didn't declare the state of emergency.

[bloody arrow]

it is going to be interesting to see if these firearms are returned or "lost".... or suddenly illegal...?
and we think we life in a democracy, right ????
it is going to be interesting, I'm sure the media will drop it after the are told to.... Can't have the population questioning the government...!!! that would not be safe????

I smell "Revolution" in the air.....

[alacringa]

From CTV news article:

The RCMP in High River is saying that the purpose of their operation to seize weapons from the homes of the residents of the flooded community was to keep them from falling into the wrong hands.

Guess what? Now they really ARE in the wrong hands.

[bloody arrow]

Originally Posted by TBD

which is also why they do nothing in ON and QC about the tobacco and firearms smuggled in from the USA on a daily basis.

TBD

PS ... they had a run in with these boys back in '90 remember - OKA crisis

and they are left alone since that time....

[bloody arrow]

Originally Posted by Olderangler

As a former Police Officer, I can't believe the RCMP would do this, what were they thinking. If the guns in High River were so dangerous, what about Calgary where there are a lot more gangs, thieves etc. I think the RCMP are out of control.

X2

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by alacringa

From CTV news article:



Guess what? Now they really ARE in the wrong hands.

Well I'm not sure about that, being in the wrong hands and all. BUT, I find it odd that the search for firearms occured 8 days after evacuation orders, shortly before the announcement was made that some residents would be allowed back in.

And even weirder. My dear friend stayed in his "unflooded" home only to ensure that his firearms, even though secured would NOT fall into the wrong hands. I had been communicating with him, several times daily. Each day, he assured me that all was good, his power was still on, he had plenty of food to survive, he had DVD movies to watch, his two dogs were fine, he asked me to apply for his hunting draws. Since yesterday, all went quiet, I cannot find him, no word whatsoever. I'm totally distraught over my friend's fate right now. I can't say this bad word, but ******, I'm concerned for him.

[stuckincity]

Originally Posted by bloody arrow

I smell "Revolution" in the air.....

I really HATE the idea of nutbar "radicals" and don't want to be one myself.
But if nonsense like this goes on to the bitter end, we might see the return of a few things from history that may or may not be good ideas:

Torches
Pitchforks
Tar
Feathers

And maybe even a guillotine, or something like it.

I sure hope not, but........

[gitrdun]

Talk about fast response. As a result of my email to the NFA earlier today, I received a timely reply from Mr. Sheldon Clare of the NFA:


Hello xxxxxx,

Thanks for your message today. *The situation that you, our other High River members, and the rest of the good people of High River are faced with is a disaster for all concerned. *It is unconscionable that the police and military used legitimate concern for casualties to seize people's firearms. *I have personally called the Federal Minister of Justice to express my concerns over these activities. *The comments of the Premier are also revealing and shocking - it seems that we are viewed as potential hazards just because of our property. *In my view, there are two many problems with what happened. *First, questionable command judgement, and secondly, a law that persecutes and punishes the peaceful possession of firearms. *People need to call Nicholson (a man who brought us C-17 with Kim Campbell), and take him to task for not changing the law. *If you wish to call his office yourself, and I hope that you will, his number is: 905-353-9590.

Feel free to contact me. *I tried to call you and several others in High River, but it is of no surprise that phone service is not working.

Good luck,

Sheldon Clare
President
Canada's NFA

250-981-1841*(cell)
Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.


TAKE IT TO TASK PEOPLE INSTEAD OF BICKERING POINTLESSLY HERE....WE ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, GUNOWNERS....DON'T LET YOUR FELLOW LIGITIMATE FIREARM OWNERS DOWN........gitrdun.