High River Gun seizure - Sun News needs first hand accounts

[rugatika]

539 properly secured firearms stolen by RCMP members.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...22-083250.html

Now that's something to be proud of.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

Thats weak...

In what way , suggest that to those who did not get a family member off the list till after the flood. Ye weak real weak. Or the family that "knew what they were doing"and promptly burnt down their house. weak as say a rumor.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

In what way , suggest that to those who did not get a family member off the list till after the flood. Ye weak real weak. Or the family that "knew what they were doing"and promptly burnt down their house. weak as say a rumor.

I wonder if the RCMP were looking for those missing people in the chambers of the seized rifles?

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by rugatika

539 properly secured firearms stolen by RCMP members.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...22-083250.html

Now that's something to be proud of.

Or B/S, some, more than one . Were in the article is the statement any guns were secure. Missed that part.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

I wonder if the RCMP were looking for those missing people in the chambers of the seized rifles?

Really, search conducted legally and correctly. unsecure fire arms were discovered. Fire arms were taken to a secure location. Thats it nothing else . As played out in fact . With a coralaton by mr eric l.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Or B/S, some, more than one . Were in the article is the statement any guns were secure. Missed that part.

"On Friday, Sgt. Patricia Neely of the RCMP told Sun News Network that some of the 539 weapons seized during the High River flooding had trigger locks."

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sask

Did you miss the FACT that gas and electric shutoffs were NOT in the home ?

Or that there was a contingency/facility for residents to sign in , indicating that everyone was OUT of your home and it was locked ?

which would lead to the conclusion :

1. turning off gas and electric IN the homes was NOT an issue
2. IF a resident had signed in , indicating that all residents were out of the home - there was NO REASON to break in (by the RCMP).

Once again FACTS

You are stating as fact that all homes were entered. You are also saying they were broken into. These are not facts.

You are not aware of what the boots on the ground saw for gas, nor if there was a concern people were in the house.

Fact was a woman who said was leaving was found dead in Calgary. Had the police gone in and checked she may be alive today. Logistically there were far too many homes to check in Calgary however.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

In what way , suggest that to those who did not get a family member off the list till after the flood. Ye weak real weak. Or the family that "knew what they were doing"and promptly burnt down their house. weak as say a rumor.

Eight days after?

If I were a police-person, I would be asking why one is requesting where an individual is eight days after the flood. Insurance on the dead old man or dead granny might be a motivator to ask questions

One has to love the "public safety" issue placed in all these wrong doings.

The really neat part is how many people believe in the public safety scam. That is bad and downright scary.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by rugatika

"On Friday, Sgt. Patricia Neely of the RCMP told Sun News Network that some of the 539 weapons seized during the High River flooding had trigger locks."

So how secure is that ? not if mr police man can walk it out of the house . Legally stored is not secure now is it .big bolted down gun safe thats secure we know this cause those guns stayed home.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Really, search conducted legally and correctly. unsecure fire arms were discovered. Fire arms were taken to a secure location. Thats it nothing else . As played out in fact . With a coralaton by mr eric l.

It had to have been played out exactly this way then. Thx for clearing this whole ugly mess up. Thk you too anonamous Eric....

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

So how secure is that ? not if mr police man can walk it out of the house . Legally stored is not secure now is it .big bolted down gun safe thats secure we know this cause those guns stayed home.

So we have to purchase gun safes to keep our firearms from being seized by the RCMP?

But trigger locks are okay to deter common thieves.

Oh boy.... please tell us more.

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

They have not given that info out that I have seen. I would hope a combination of deterrent, enforcement, flood danger and proactive policing meant zero. There is a breakdown in the containment area if crooks get in. Still you have to be vigilant and proactive just in case they do.

The police stealing property instead of civilians stealing property is not proactive policing, it's theft! There is zero reason for the federal burglarizing of private property. No one is home and the property is legal they let it be. What is next kick in the doors and take guns when the owner goes on vacation...how about when they go to work, step out for milk etc. Unattended firearms may get stolen so the police should steal them? I'm thankful Sundancefisher isn't creating the laws in this nation!

Proactive policing....the job of the police is to enforce the law,and investigate crime. Give your head a shake your mind appears stuck in a very unsavory place.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

So how secure is that ? not if mr police man can walk it out of the house . Legally stored is not secure now is it .big bolted down gun safe thats secure we know this cause those guns stayed home.

In a basement full of water? Ha Ha Ha Ha.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by greylynx

In a basement full of water? Ha Ha Ha Ha.

good safes are fine with that and fire and bombs. get what ya pay for and all that.

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

So we have to purchase gun safes to keep our firearms from being seized by the RCMP?

But trigger locks are okay to deter common thieves.

Oh boy.... please tell us more.

Remember the good old days when a door lock or a closed door was good enough. Hoplophobia has proven to be an inconvenience that today turns a blind eye to the law. It's a disease!

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

So we have to purchase gun safes to keep our firearms from being seized by the RCMP?

But trigger locks are okay to deter common thieves.

Oh boy.... please tell us more.

No, not what i posted: unsecure has no bearing on legal storage.

[brendan's dad]

I read the nine pages of "posts" and got curious so I read the emergency measures act. Part 19 lays out the authorities that the ministry (RCMP) have in a state of emergency. They basically own the town and can do whatever is deemed necessary to combat the emergency. If they want to bulldoze your house to create dam in an effort to stop the flood, they can do it. If taking the guns for safe storage was part of their "action plan" then they have that authority under the act. The act also covers entering any dwelling or place of business without a warrant and the right to a forced evacuation. The act also clearly states that persons who have lost property or are financially burden by the Ministries action will be compensated. I guess some don't agree with what the RCMP did but part 19 seems to makes what they did legal...... Might be worth a read.

[elkhunter11]

Legally stored is not secure now is it .

But it is safe as far as the law is concerned.

I read the nine pages of "posts" and got curious so I read the emergency measures act. Part 19 lays out the authorities that the ministry (RCMP) have in a state of emergency. They basically own the town and can do whatever is deemed necessary to combat the emergency. If they want to bulldoze your house to create dam in an effort to stop the flood, they can do it. If taking the guns for safe storage was part of their "action plan" then they have that authority under the act. The act also covers entering any dwelling or place of business without a warrant and the right to a forced evacuation. The act also clearly states that persons who have lost property or are financially burden by the Ministries action will be compensated. I guess some don't agree with what the RCMP did but part 19 seems to makes what they did legal...... Might be worth a read.

Building a dam with your house is combating the emergency, by holding back the flood waters. And under the emergency measures act, the authorities have the right to take what they need to combat the emergency. However, unless they plan to build a dam with the firearms, how is taking them from homes combating the flood?

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

No, not what i posted: unsecure has no bearing on legal storage.

I have kept out of this thread for this long but this is complete horsechit. How about when I go on vacation, should the cops come and kick in my door and take my "unsecured" firearms? Legal storage is just that LEGAL, leave it the f'k alone. On top of that what ever happened to a Man's house is his kingdom?

Quit writing laws that don't exist.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by ErikL

Just to clarify the kicking down door part. that was a small percentage from the ones i saw, most owners left their doors unlocked as per the evacuation orders, or a locksmith made entry. There was many windows smashed already due to floating debris, and some houses already had signs of forced entry and theft, to put it bluntly, home security was already greatly compromised and a determined thief wouldn't have to try to very hard to get into a house considering the circumstances.

Hey Erik.

Can you confirm this as one of the boots on the ground that homeowners were in fact to leave the doors unlocked? I had another link from an evacuation order but I can't remember how to track it back down. A zillion articles on this topic.

Thanks kindly.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

I have kept out of this thread for this long but this is complete horsechit. How about when I go on vacation, should the cops come and kick in my door and take my "unsecured" firearms? Legal storage is just that LEGAL, leave it the f'k alone. On top of that what ever happened to a Man's house is his kingdom?

Quit writing laws that don't exist.

Its a STATE OF EMERGENCY at the time of the inatal search 100 folks were claimed missing .
If your in cuba and your town floods oh say 10' deep want them to secure your collection.
Or say a car floats thru your front window. all good leave it the f alone.

[Kanonfodder]

You do understand that all that matters is the law for storage of non restricted firearms, right? If it is on your fireplace mantle and trigger locked its legally stored, if its in a display case with trigger locks or a locking cable its legally stored. This in NO WAY makes them unsecured guns. If its in a locked room in a locked gun safe its legally stored. If the RCMP took these guns just because they were in plain sight it's an illegal seizure

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Its a STATE OF EMERGENCY at the time of the inatal search 100 folks were claimed missing .
If your in cuba and your town floods oh say 10' deep want them to secure your collection.
Or say a car floats thru your front window. all good leave it the f alone.

Who claimed a hundred folks missing? Maybe unaccounted for but certainly not missing. And yes, I would prefer if the cops stayed the f out unless invited.

[elkhunter11]

Can you confirm this as one of the boots on the ground that homeowners were in fact to leave the doors unlocked?

So if your somewhat flawed version of the legal safe storage of firearms includes locking the door, how could the local authorities legally direct firearms owners to violate the federal firearms legislation? I don't see anything in the emergency measures act, that allows citizens to violate federal legislation.

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

So how secure is that ? not if mr police man can walk it out of the house . Legally stored is not secure now is it .big bolted down gun safe thats secure we know this cause those guns stayed home.

There is nothing that is secure mate! It's kind of like chastity. You can't guarantee virginity. You can't guarantee mental health you can pass all kinds of rules against nut jobs going off but you can't prevent it. But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Guns don't have to be secure they don't have to be entombed in 16 cubic yards of steel reinforced concrete. They just need to be legally stored.

Anybody can get into anything, a guy that worked with Armour probably knows little is indestructible.

The LEO's have no mandate to steal property, hell cars can be hot wired why were they not stealing those too. Antiques are valuable and can be stolen, any old furniture confiscated?

Sure stinks like an illegal gun grab to me.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Interesting information.....

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/t.../2560344781001

LC

Thanks for posting.

Unfortunately in an evolving emergency, a columnist/editorial will not report on the facts. I was hoping for a real story... not a rumor booster.

Using phrases like "Storming in" and "busted into people's homes in many cases" and "seized fire arms".

Statements like this is no different than CNN's statements about 9/11 bombers coming from Canada. He had no back up evidence. No facts but was actually reporting on the emotions of time. This is evidenced by the same paper unable to corroborate the story for an actual news story with witnesses.

This same style story when this story broke had me all riled up. This is what had me going originally.

He does brings up interesting points which contradicts other stories.

He made lots of suppositions and hopefully the review will either prove, disprove or address why things were done as they were and if it was appropriate and will be done again or the process will be changed.

Understanding the facts is key... We don't have much to go on so far.

Even the National Fire Arms Association along with the Calgary Sun have not been able to get people to step up and make a statement to point negative fingers at the RCMP.

They stated the town was empty and no one walking around. Others have posted that people were. People were actually still living inside the evacuation zone. So saying no one was inside the perimeter is not entirely true. Saying the town was surrounded is also exaggerating. Road blocks were in place and patrols were being conducted. There was not a ring around the town. Criminals rarely following the rules of only entering via the road. Police and army were in Calgary also. Still places got broken into.

Good to see this video online however. Hopefully after 4 weeks it gives people a reminder to speak up. The Sun will support them. The National Fire Arms Association will support them and I will support them if they have something important to bring forward.

Lefty-Canuck... if no one steps forward... will you accept you are wrong?

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Its a STATE OF EMERGENCY at the time of the inatal search 100 folks were claimed missing .
If your in cuba and your town floods oh say 10' deep want them to secure your collection.
Or say a car floats thru your front window. all good leave it the f alone.

What are you talking about???

Did you just tune into this topic?

Give your head a shake and come back to your senses....if possible

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by Kanonfodder

You do understand that all that matters is the law for storage of non restricted firearms, right? If it is on your fireplace mantle and trigger locked its legally stored, if its in a display case with trigger locks or a locking cable its legally stored. This in NO WAY makes them unsecured guns. If its in a locked room in a locked gun safe its legally stored. If the RCMP took these guns just because they were in plain sight it's an illegal seizure

And this my friends pretty much sums it up. Any way you want to look at it.

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

And this my friends pretty much sums it up. Any way you want to look at it.

x2

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

The police stealing property instead of civilians stealing property is not proactive policing, it's theft! There is zero reason for the federal burglarizing of private property. No one is home and the property is legal they let it be. What is next kick in the doors and take guns when the owner goes on vacation...how about when they go to work, step out for milk etc. Unattended firearms may get stolen so the police should steal them? I'm thankful Sundancefisher isn't creating the laws in this nation!

Proactive policing....the job of the police is to enforce the law,and investigate crime. Give your head a shake your mind appears stuck in a very unsavory place.

Long stretch to compare a thief stealing your gun and the police storing it until you can safely retrieve it.

Happy you are not a judge.