Cops VS Gun Owners AGAIN!

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

'Stuff, would you advocate only confiscation for a firearms conviction? I might be inclined to confiscate upon conviction of a serious crime in which no firearms were used. For example, I'd advocate taking it away for a violent sexual assault conviction even if the guy used a knife. Ditto for a repeat convicted wife-beater, even though he never used the gun on her. Your thoughts?

I have been pondering that one for awhile now. Im kinda leaning towards "firearms only" charges resulting in firearms ban. Reason is this:

A woman beats her husband. She gets charged. She is a firearms owner. Firearms played no part in the assault. Where is the connection? Should she lose her guns because she assaulted her husband? I say no.

Now if she threatened to shoot him or something happened that related to tge firearms, then yes.

It kinda gives support to the idea that if someone gets violent, they will shoot someone. Thats not always the case. Its actually very uncommon.

I think it makes an unfair connection between violence and guns.

If i punch out some guy who makes a sexual type comment to my wife, should i be in fear of losing my guns? I think not. If it were the case, i would be like so many other people who seem forced to put up with abuse and not react for fear of being treated harsher than the perpetrator

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Private Ear

I think one of the most important points here is how perception towards law enforcement agencies is changing due to more and more stories like this one.

These actions are making that perception worse everytime another incident happens. My views are changing rapidly.

True enough. That said I would start to take all the stories with a grain of salt. The defense lawyers can say what they want, but if the police release any of the information that they gathered they can be charged with privacy violations.

Are there bad apples? Of course. But you have to stop, think and understand that headlines like:" Mountie does foot patrol and by his/her simple presence kept a rape from occuring" are hard to write."

"Mountie pulls over speeder doing 50 in a child zone that if the car wasn't stopped would have hit a kid chasing a ball down the road"

For ever screw up there are literally 10s of thousands of shifts that go by where they do a hard job in an exemplary manner.

[noelb]

I want C68 GONE!!! I want the registry GONE!!! I want the CHARTER of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS BURNT TO A CRISP !!!!! That way we can start again and drug dealing, pimping douch bag bikers and all other organized criminals can be punished for their crimes. I gag every time I hear some dirt bag lawyer whine "Charter Breach" when his guilty as sin drug dealing client didn't hear the officer read the Charter and Caution, or some other minor insignifiganr detail.

I realize that the coppers have a to clean up their act and change their attitude toward legitamate gun owners, but at the same time DO NOT lump me in with this poor elderly douch bag. **** him and all his buddies. I grew up in close proximity to some of the "BDR's" and the "Outlaws" prior to the big "HA" take over in Ontario. They are Criminals. They exploit our children. They are a blight on our community.

I own several guns, both restricted and non-restricted. I hate the way some police view us gun owners, but please for God sake, do not assosciate me with these guys in any way.

Now....off to but a new Shotgun.

[parfleche]

Yup Two sides to everything, But just a thought, WHAT IF someones dog who once nipped at kids, and i caught him on my property non stop barking and I sat on him to hold him and he has broken ribs , until the dog catcher comes along ?HMMM??

[elkhunter11]

We as citizens, need to stop blaming all police officers for the actions of a few.The police forces, need to stop protecting the few bad apples that commit acts such as the one that this thread is based on. The lawmakers need to amend the laws so that the few officers who commit such acts are dealt with very harshly.

[mtylerb]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I am pretty sure that anyone on this thread who is jacking the police for raiding that guys house and the cheesy charges would be yelling their heads off at the police incompetence if any of the following happened:

1. The police knock on the door and get shot through it (They knew he had guns and was a biker and were stupid enough to knock! I would have kicked the door in!!)

2. The police knock on the door, get shot at, and some kids in the playground across the street gets killed (see above)

3. The police do nothing at all and all of the sudden this person of somewhat ill repute claims that his 100 perfectly stored guns were stolen in a break in. They end up on the street (in the hands of bikers and the like) and kill people. (they knew this dirtbag had guns and did nothing about it!!!)

Bill C-68 has put the street police in a serious bind. It has made them the tool of the wendy cookier types who think that if only gunpowder wasn't invented that lions would now be dancing with lambs. All the quotes from Allan Rock, Sheila Copps et al. and the fact that they were voted in several times scare me more than any of the actions from the police.

Furthermore, I honestly don't blame them for taking down this person the way they did it. There are risk factors involved. Leader of a bike gang? Check. Weapons available? Double Check. Possibility of hangers on and the like in the house that may access guns during a raid? Triple Check.

Sure they didn't let him up for 5 hours. That may be true. He may have also spent all that time under a cop saying:"when I get up you're all dead" Do you think his dirtbag defense lawyer would let that tidbit slip into the media??

I am not a cop, but I am not stupid enough to think that the guy who got raided was some "Law abiding gun owner"

If any of the posters on here have actually had the tac team hit them in their houses, please complain to your city alderman and the police complaint comissions. Remember the old addage:"If you ask them, there are no guilty men in jail"

What if, what if, what if. Your whole defense is based on "what if". At this point he had no criminal record. For all intents and purposes he was a law abiding firearm owner. Regardless, the story doesn't give any reason for them to be invading the person's house, to begin with. Did they have a warrant? If so, perhaps it was all called for.

The point of the article wasn't to say whether or not this specific person was wronged, the point was to show the disconnect and distrust between gun owners and police. Tredeb's post has it nailed.

[mtylerb]

Originally Posted by parfleche

Yup Two sides to everything, But just a thought, WHAT IF someones dog who once nipped at kids, and i caught him on my property non stop barking and I sat on him to hold him and he has broken ribs , until the dog catcher comes along ?HMMM??

You should be taken out back and shot. Obviously animal rights are of higher importance than human rights.





Relax, I'm kidding.

[DAVE]

Originally Posted by parfleche

Yup Two sides to everything, But just a thought, WHAT IF someones dog who once nipped at kids, and i caught him on my property non stop barking and I sat on him to hold him and he has broken ribs , until the dog catcher comes along ?HMMM??

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I am pretty sure that anyone on this thread who is jacking the police for raiding that guys house and the cheesy charges would be yelling their heads off at the police incompetence if any of the following happened:

1. The police knock on the door and get shot through it (They knew he had guns and was a biker and were stupid enough to knock! I would have kicked the door in!!)

2. The police knock on the door, get shot at, and some kids in the playground across the street gets killed (see above)

3. The police do nothing at all and all of the sudden this person of somewhat ill repute claims that his 100 perfectly stored guns were stolen in a break in. They end up on the street (in the hands of bikers and the like) and kill people. (they knew this dirtbag had guns and did nothing about it!!!)

Bill C-68 has put the street police in a serious bind. It has made them the tool of the wendy cookier types who think that if only gunpowder wasn't invented that lions would now be dancing with lambs. All the quotes from Allan Rock, Sheila Copps et al. and the fact that they were voted in several times scare me more than any of the actions from the police.

Furthermore, I honestly don't blame them for taking down this person the way they did it. There are risk factors involved. Leader of a bike gang? Check. Weapons available? Double Check. Possibility of hangers on and the like in the house that may access guns during a raid? Triple Check.

Sure they didn't let him up for 5 hours. That may be true. He may have also spent all that time under a cop saying:"when I get up you're all dead" Do you think his dirtbag defense lawyer would let that tidbit slip into the media??

I am not a cop, but I am not stupid enough to think that the guy who got raided was some "Law abiding gun owner"

If any of the posters on here have actually had the tac team hit them in their houses, please complain to your city alderman and the police complaint comissions. Remember the old addage:"If you ask them, there are no guilty men in jail"

So you advocate the police rushing into a home, and breaking ribs on 76 year old men, because of something that may happen in the future?

Wow

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

Oh, and with the success of Operation Turf Mark Holland, I think that the firearms community is finally pulling together.

Firearms types tend to be loners who like to hunt and fish. Jerks like the Libs know this and exploit it (kinda like they exploited the fact that the military can't vote as a block in the 90s)

Band together, get politically active and stop calling out people who hunt, fish, trap or hike different than you.

Outdoors people and firearms owners have to start looking out for one another. And pray the NDP and the Libs NEVER get in again.

Seems to me we are banding together. The person in this article is being supported by the majority of the posters. He is very different than most of us, and the cops charging him because his locks weren't good enough for them. That is a travesty.

[Got Juice?]

pfft. I just read through my firearms manual, and the term of 'lock is so loosely applied, you can use a zip tie and it qualifies.

Someone better make a firearm lock....

[jungleboy]

The problem with the cops in this article is that they reinforce the stereotype of "goon squad" they have become known for in recent years. I am not going to paint em all with the same brush ( like many people do to gun owners ...HMMM?) but I must say . I have met a few "member" socially and otherwise and they all seem to exhibit a similar character flaw that I can't stand . It's a "God Complex" They will never ever admit they are wrong or made a mistake. and that is why I and many others have little real respect for the police.

[Straightgun]

This guy sounds like a black eye waiting to happen for gun owners.

My question is how was he able to get these guns if he is dangerous to the point of needing to raid his house and take them away.


Police are not the enemy of gun owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The liberals and ndp are!

[bigd]

Originally Posted by mtylerb

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but no vague definitions. Drinking and driving may be a criminal conviction, but there's nothing violent about it. I know you didn't mention that, I'm just making an example up.

Off topic, but I can't resist this one...

So I take it you've never seen the carnage of a head-on caused by an impaired driver? I have, I've shoveled up the shattered skulls, the burnt and dismembered body parts of victims that were killed as the result of impaired driving. On more occasions than I care to remember, I've accompanied VSU to tell a family that their loved ones won't ever by coming home again because of some ***hole that decided not to call a cab. I've also spent many days at my parents hospital bedside after they were rear-ended and seriously injured by an impaired driver. The driver got an $800 fine and a 1 year driving prohib. Got his licence back in 3 mos with an alcohol interlock device. My parents- in their 'golden years' are permanently f'd up physically and mentally. But it's not a violent offence...

Not a violent offence my ass.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Straightgun

Police are not the enemy of gun owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The liberals and ndp are!

That may be very true. But, it would be nice for the police to stand by law abiding gun owners. They had a chance the last time the registry was on the chopping block and most decided to hide in the shadows and keep quite. Mr. Huntinstuff did not, where were the rest of his colleagues? We need more honorable officers like him to side with the law abiding firearm owners, until then there will be animosity from both sides.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

That may be very true. But, it would be nice for the police to stand by law abiding gun owners. They had a chance the last time the registry was on the chopping block and most decided to hide in the shadows and keep quite. Mr. Huntinstuff did not, where were the rest of his colleagues? We need more honorable officers like him to side with the law abiding firearm owners, until then there will be animosity from both sides.

x2

[bigd]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

That may be very true. But, it would be nice for the police to stand by law abiding gun owners. They had a chance the last time the registry was on the chopping block and most decided to hide in the shadows and keep quite. Mr. Huntinstuff did not, where were the rest of his colleagues? We need more honorable officers like him to side with the law abiding firearm owners, until then there will be animosity from both sides.

Yeah, it's our fault. We should all lose our jobs so we can all keep our guns. What did you do to support the registry when it was 'on the chopping block' as you call it? I may not have publicly supported the demise of the registry as a police officer but I can assure you that I've gone above and beyond to minimize the impact of the registry and C68 on law abiding citizens.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Randy and what he's done for our cause. I hope that he hasn't put his career and family at risk. I suspect that he is in a position that if he was to get into hot water from his employer due to his actions that he would have a good back up plan such as retirement etc.

I'm only about half way to my pension, have 3 children to raise, a home to pay for, food to buy. Not a gun in the world that is worth more to me than being able to support my family.

Here's an idea...you quit your job and devote 40 hrs a week to the cause. Seems to me, you feel that this is essentially what you expect of Canadian LEO's. Let me know how that works out for you.

[bigd]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

x2

look up /\

[Findal]

I'm only about half way to my pension, have 3 children to raise, a home to pay for, food to buy. Not a gun in the world that is worth more to me than being able to support my family.

You really outlined the problem there...

It's NOT about a gun, it's about doing what's right, and standing up for what you believe in.

You sure make it sound like the job, its convience and perks is what's important... or otherwise implying that you can't do anything else so you have to toe the line no matter what.

That's some nice police PR job there!

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by bigd

Yeah, it's our fault. We should all lose our jobs so we can all keep our guns. What did you do to support the registry when it was 'on the chopping block' as you call it? I may not have publicly supported the demise of the registry as a police officer but I can assure you that I've gone above and beyond to minimize the impact of the registry and C68 on law abiding citizens.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Randy and what he's done for our cause. I hope that he hasn't put his career and family at risk. I suspect that he is in a position that if he was to get into hot water from his employer due to his actions that he would have a good back up plan such as retirement etc.

I'm only about half way to my pension, have 3 children to raise, a home to pay for, food to buy. Not a gun in the world that is worth more to me than being able to support my family.

Here's an idea...you quit your job and devote 40 hrs a week to the cause. Seems to me, you feel that this is essentially what you expect of Canadian LEO's. Let me know how that works out for you.

Never said it was your fault. But if someone disagrees with something and won't stand up for it what does that say about your character? If I was employed by someone that enjoyed strong arming me, I'd be gone in a second. I've got three kids too and a house and groceries to buy and no pension.

I could loose everything I've got because a LEO decides my Sentry safe isn't good enough.

What I expect from Canadian LEO's? Protect and Serve. You guys have one of the hardest jobs out there, but the brass isn't doing the guys with their boots on the pavement any favors when it issues gag orders.

[reubenb]

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has a full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Who was that again? Oh right, good old Adolph.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by bigd

Yeah, it's our fault. We should all lose our jobs so we can all keep our guns. What did you do to support the registry when it was 'on the chopping block' as you call it? I may not have publicly supported the demise of the registry as a police officer but I can assure you that I've gone above and beyond to minimize the impact of the registry and C68 on law abiding citizens.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Randy and what he's done for our cause. I hope that he hasn't put his career and family at risk. I suspect that he is in a position that if he was to get into hot water from his employer due to his actions that he would have a good back up plan such as retirement etc.

I'm only about half way to my pension, have 3 children to raise, a home to pay for, food to buy. Not a gun in the world that is worth more to me than being able to support my family.

Here's an idea...you quit your job and devote 40 hrs a week to the cause. Seems to me, you feel that this is essentially what you expect of Canadian LEO's. Let me know how that works out for you.

The citizens are afraid of the police, and it looks like the police are afraid of their masters/handlers. http://www.naturalnews.com/030563_TS...sychology.html

Am I wrong?? I really hope I am...but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, .....

Kinda leads to a question of the police. At what point would you stop saying..."I'm just doing my job."?? How many times IN THIS VERY COUNTRY have we seen police ordered to do something that is blatantly unconstitutional, go ahead and do it? G8, peppergate, gun owner harrasment, confiscation of guns that are being properly transported etc etc etc. All under the guise of "I was just doing my job." Shameful. If you don't have the moral capability to stand up for what is right, you should not be a police officer...plain and simple. We entrust great powers with police officers, and to come on here and say that you will not stand up for the rights of your fellow citizens AND family because it might cost you your job. Funny...but I've heard that somewhere before in history.


Oh yeah...that was a huge slap in the face to Randy, claiming he must have had a backup plan. As if to question his courageousness and excuse your lack thereof. AND I don't mean to single you out either, as it seems to be the prevailing thought pattern among police and not the exception.

[bigd]

Originally Posted by Findal

You really outlined the problem there...

It's NOT about a gun, it's about doing what's right, and standing up for what you believe in.

You sure make it sound like the job, its convience and perks is what's important... or otherwise implying that you can't do anything else so you have to toe the line no matter what.

That's some nice police PR job there!

It's about paying to feed my family, putting them through school, on sports teams, presents for birthdays and xmas.

It has nothing to do with 'convience' or perks (?). I stand up for what is right, just because your forum may be different matters not. If you reread my post, you'll see the part where i said that i go above and beyond to assist and protect law abiding citizens from the registry and C68.

If this is police pr, then i better ask the CACP for a pay raise.

[jungleboy]

regarless of all the rhetoric on this thread , two thing seem to have been accomplished by the registry debacle .

1: Law abiding gun owners have become the evil boogie man to too many.Canadians who would not have gave it a second thought before all this garbage.We are the guilty before proven innocent demographic it seems.

2: law abiding gun owners have little trust for the Police ,always a cloud of suspicion ,an us vs them thing I think.Don't argue a traffic ticket for fear the a swat team might show up at your door cuz the registry says you have a shotgun in your home.

Thank you Allan Rock and all your Lieberal cronies for that .the sooner this crock of a law is gone the better off we will be as a society .



EDIT.... One more thing , I always felt that the registry was really nothing to do with fighting real crime ,but it was more a back door attempt by the anti hunting crowd to try and demonize hunters/and discourage people from wanting to get involved in the sport by just making it too difficult to bother with.

just my 2 cents

[Cappy]

Although he has not been an angel for much of his life, Mr. Barnes has no criminal record, either. Nevertheless, he claims police never approached him peacefully before the day they forced their way into his home to examine his gun lockers. They never phoned him or came to his door asking to take a look around. Their default was to treat him as a danger to the community from minute one.
When they did phone, it was to tell him — erroneously — that his car was being broken into. When he opened his apartment door to go check, he claims a big police officer lunged towards him, grabbed him by the neck and pushed him to the floor where a civilian member of the force fell on him, breaking some of his ribs.

I actually read through a lot of the responses to this thread. It amazes me even though the very limited and on sided information is there at the beginning. I still read several comments about an assault that occurred where the victim had his ribs broken. This article clearly states that a civilian member fell on him. That implies too me that it was inadvertent and not malicious. Also having a civilian member at the front, where things could get very hectic tells me the threat level wasn't extremely high. The fake phone call isn't a bad idea if you ask me. Guy has a history with the police and may not be overly co-operative on the phone, get him outside and into custody and voila threat level goes way down and the chance of him doing something stupid is removed.

It looks like a lot of people are drawing some hard and fast conclusions based on some limited info.

[greylynx]

This thread shows three types of morality.

Those who have morals, and know the difference of right from wrong.

Those who think they are morally superior and think they know better than the basic person who has morals. The person who thinks they are morally superior will always come out smelling like a liberal

Those without morals. These are very dangerous people. They tend to follow liberals.

[elkhunter11]

This article clearly states that a civilian member fell on him. That implies too me that it was inadvertent and not malicious.

It say's that a civilian member fell on him, it doesn't state that it was accidental. How common is it for someone accidentally falling on someone, to break the persons ribs? You have to fall on them pretty hard to do that by accident.Of course if you fell on that person intentionally, the odds of injury would increase dramatically.

Also having a civilian member at the front, where things could get very hectic tells me the threat level wasn't extremely high. The fake phone call isn't a bad idea if you ask me.

If the threat level wasn't perceived to be that high, why didn't they just knock on the door?

Guy has a history with the police and may not be overly co-operative on the phone, get him outside and into custody and voila threat level goes way down and the chance of him doing something stupid is removed.

The article quite clearly stated, that the man was a FORMER gang member, and he had NO CRIMINAL RECORD. He was also 76YEARS OLD. And in your own words,"having a civilian member at the front, where things could get very hectic tells me the threat level wasn't extremely high.".For the threat level to go way down, would not it have had to be high in the first place?

He then lay on the floor at gunpoint for five hours while officers “tore apart” his apartment looking for guns.

So we have a 76 year old man with broken ribs, forced to lay on a floor for five hours.Does that sound reasonable? Would it not have been more reasonable to take the man for medical treatment rather than have him lay on a floor for five hours with broken ribs.

[Cappy]

Not looking to get into a pi**ing match elk, just pointing out that with very little info people are getting very emotional and drawing some conclusions.

I may have some ideas about the incident, but in no way are they conclusions.

When it says a person fell on them I can only take that at face value, he fell on the individual. I believe this is information conveyed from the victim? Not sure, but I believe so. Average male weighing say 200lbs falling onto a 76 year old, depending on the victims frailty and what part of his body impacted the ribs, could very easily break ribs. Heck I cracked mine slipping of the back bumper of my truck, reaching in the back and catching the closed tailgate on the way down. That was a distance of what a foot maybe and I'm in good health.

Just because and individual has no criminal record, does not in any way mean they have had no dealings with the police. It means they haven't been convicted of anything. Having been the leader of a known criminal bike gang I think it would be a safe bet that there have been dealings between the victim and and the police.

Threat levels don't have to be high for them to go down. Minimizing them from the outset is a very smart thing to do for the safety of everyone, including the suspect/victim. They are in fact probably very fluid and changing as the situation develops and unfolds.

How about this for a scenario.

"Okay guys we have a search warrant here that needs to be executed. The suspect is a 76 year old male who is in possession of 100 firearms. He is however the former leader of the bike gang XXXXX. Although he has no criminal convictions in the past he has been investigated and charged with numerous criminal offences in relation to fraud, money laundering and extortion. Most of them were withdrawn or stay of proceedings entered as witnesses would not testify in court and the majority of the crimes were against other people in the criminal world.

So even though he is elderly, lets proceed with some caution in this situation. Lets surround the house and make a fake phone call in to see if we can get him to come out. Once he is out and we can see no weapons are involved arrest him. This will prevent him from refusing access and us having to ramp this up and call out the SWAT team and do a dynamic entry."

Did this happen? I have no idea and neither does anyone else here as there is not enough information to draw a conclusion and that was really the only point I was trying to make. At the end of the day the police could be in the absolute wrong, I don't know that either.

[gatorhunter]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

That may be very true. But, it would be nice for the police to stand by law abiding gun owners. They had a chance the last time the registry was on the chopping block and most decided to hide in the shadows and keep quite. Mr. Huntinstuff did not, where were the rest of his colleagues? We need more honorable officers like him to side with the law abiding firearm owners, until then there will be animosity from both sides.

All levels of police from numerous Canadian jurisdictions are on record for being against all or most of C68 and other useless firearm legislation proposals and implementations. Ever since Rockhead first convinced the Federal Liberals to pass his brain child numerous police agencies and every Provincial Game Warden association have stood against it. Only the group calling itself the Association of Police Chiefs have spoken in support. The rank and file is overwhelmingly against C68.

The RCMP in Manitoba stay as far away as possible from enforcing those laws. However, when dealing with persons of interest like the sombrero guy any conviction is a positive.

There is way too much conspiracy and paranoia being demonstrated on this topic. The police will not simply enter into any of our homes just because we are gun owners. Get real! I would suggest that a huge majority of police officers are firearm owners themselves. I'm convinced that they don't want other police officers coming into their homes just because they own firearms.

Paranoia will destroy ya!

[ctd]

Yet had the Police gone in there and gotten shot, the same people who are against the Police would be saying well they knew he had guns and was a risk. So why did they not use the ERT. Hard crowd.

Who really cares it was a Ontario Resident having the police excercise their Areas dearming of citizens. They voted for it so they reap the rewards.

I cannot really say much about the incident, as the info given is very limited from the article and others I have looked at. The facts are this guy was a leader of a notorius biker gang in Ont.(once a member always a member 99.9% of the time applies).
Being that he was 76 years old has no bearing in how they dealt with the matter.
The actual charges they used maybe BS charges in your and my eyes but they maybe the tip of the iceberg of what charges may come out of other investigations. Who knows, maybe they did do an injustice. Guess it will be up to the court to figure out.