RCMP Gun Seizure Meeting With Danielle Smith

[elkhunter11]

If they acted alone, then they can't claim that they were acting under the powers of the Emergency Management Act; only the "local authority" can "authorize the entry into any building or on any land, without warrant, by any person in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program".

Very interesting.

[silverdoctor]

Said it before, i'll say it again - where there is no remedy, there are no rights... When the RCMP choose to trump the rights of the individual, we don't stand much of a chance.

Here's the Alberta bill of rights - pretty cut and dry.

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Alberta there exist
without discrimination by reasonof race, national origin, colour,
religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental
freedoms, namely:
(a) the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association;
(f) freedom of the press.

2 Every law of Alberta shall, unless it is expressly declared by an
Act of the Legislature that it operates notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.

3(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to abrogate or abridge
any human right or fundamental freedom not enumerated herein that may have existed in Alberta at the commencement of this Act.

(2) In this Act, “law of Alberta” means an Act of the Legislature of Alberta enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, and any law in force in Alberta at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Legislature of Alberta.

(3) The provisions of this Act shall be construed as extending only
to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Legislature
of Alberta.

4(1) If in any action or other proceeding a question arises as to whether any law of Alberta abrogates, abridges or infringes, or authorizes the abrogation, abridgment or infringement, of any of the rights and freedoms herein recognized and declared, no adjudication on that question is valid unless notice has been given to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General.

(2) When the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General has notice
under subsection (1), the Minister may, in person or by counsel,
appear and participate in that action or proceeding on such terms
and conditions as the court, person or body conducting the
proceeding may consider just.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Anyway you look at it Rouge police involved in a Rogue operation, under a Rogue R.C.M. P. command.

The buck stops at Harper.

And I voted for him. Yuk

I don't think the buck stops at Harper, they are rogue and used to answer to the laws of Canada. Now they are "free range law", so to speak, do what you want as long as it gives the illusion of following the law. The way they are handling the registry, case in point. I don't think it can be fixed, scrap them and start over.

[Quadboy]

[finsnfeathers]

Originally Posted by Quadboy

Powerful sign really, when you stop to think about all emotions it portrays:


humor
sarcasm
distrust
betrayal
disappointment
corruption
broken system
salt on a wound
liberal redford
an endless list...!

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by finsnfeathers

Powerful sign really, when you stop to think about all emotions it portrays:


humor
sarcasm
distrust
betrayal
disappointment
corruption
broken system
salt on a wound
liberal redford
an endless list...!

How can the premier be in any way connected to any action of the Rc's in high river?? The vids show water knee deep in houses with basements . I wonder if a home owner asked the RC's to retrive unsecure firearms in some cases. Lol but no it suits the agenda to believe they used lgr info to target homes with firearms. Even though they had every means and opportunity to secure EVERY fire arm in high river,
only those found unsecure were brought out .folks dont understand ploice or military tend not to do things by halves so get some of the firearms does not ring true , get all the firearms would. However the actuality shows the police found unsecured firearms during emergency searches due to severe flooding many of these houses were unsecure due to flooding alone never mind the RC's.

[elkhunter11]

Even though they had every means and opportunity to secure EVERY fire arm in high river,
only those found unsecure were brought out

Unless you were present in every home in High River,during the seizures, you have no way of knowing if all of the firearms that were seized were not secured.

[Kanonfodder]

There are people and claims of secured firearms were taken. The emergency act does not supersede the Alberta bill of rights period. The RCMP do not have the right to remove private property. They also removed guns from non flooded areas....

So lets sum up

Not all flooded houses were entered
Not all non flooded houses were entered
Some flooded houses entered multiple times
Some non flooded houses were entered multiple times
The street where two RCMPs lived that was flooded were the only houses not kicked in
Houses entered multiple times ( flooded and non ) had guns seized

IMO opinion once they found a few rifles in the open stored legally they seized those and used used either a version of the LGR or used the RPAL and PAL list to target homes

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you were present in every home in High River,during the seizures, you have no way of knowing if all of the firearms that were seized were not secured.

Really, cause a secure fire arm is secure not stored. thats the issue in a nut shell my firearms are stored correctly that is not secure. we know the firearms in high river were not secure because the RC's walked out with them ie not secure the local gun store has secure displays. ie with out tools those guns cant be walked out .

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Kanonfodder

Are you trolling or purposely baiting here? There are people and claims of secured firearms were taken. The emergency act does not supersede the Alberta bill of rights period. The RCMP do not have the right to remove private property. They also removed guns from non flooded areas....

So lets sum up

Not all flooded houses were entered
Not all non flooded houses were entered
Some flooded houses entered multiple times
Some non flooded houses were entered multiple times
The street where two RCMPs lived that was flooded were the only houses not kicked in
Houses entered multiple times ( flooded and non ) had guns seized

IMO opinion once they found a few rifles in the open stored legally they seized those and used used either a version of the LGR or used the RPAL and PAL list to target homes

Not trying to bait any one.I understand "Alleged" lawer and media speak, till the courts aggree on a statement of fact . I understand stored and secured are two different things . Not all firearms were taken its that simple
we are talking the military and the police they have the means to secure EVERY firearm in high river, this is not the case as others have stated saves were left untouched. My point being a firearm in a safe is secure a properly stored rifle on a bed , in a closet is not secure.

[Got Juice?]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you were present in every home in High River,during the seizures, you have no way of knowing if all of the firearms that were seized were not secured.

Ok. Try this for a minute. FORGET THE GUNS.



And then tell my why not ALL the homes were seached with a kicked down door?

Explain to me how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is INVIOLATE unless temporarily suspended by a vote in the HOC is null and void based on what the RCSSMP did?
That very inviolate Charter protects ALL Canadians against unlawful search and siezure.


From any point of the Charter this represents a blatant and ILLEGAL violation of the rights of ALL CANADIANS (not just the ones in high river)

And the members involved should be dismissed from service. Obviously they lack the character AND conviction to disobey an order that is absolutely wrong.

'Just Following Orders' is no defence when commiting a crime, or atrocity.

And that's what is at stake.

[Kanonfodder]

First, lets look at the storage of a non-restricted firearm, taken from the March 1998 Regulations:

[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 if my rifle is hanging over the fireplace with a trigger lock its legally stored but I guarantee the RCMP would seize it

[TBD]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

we know the firearms in high river were not secure because the RC's walked out with them ie not secure the local gun store has secure displays. ie with out tools those guns cant be walked out .

A bolt action rifle is stored securely as long as the bolt is removed and stored in a different room from the rifle - a bolt action rifle with the bolt missing could be easily grabbed by an RC and "walked out with"

[Kanonfodder]

Actually tbd there is NO wording as to where the bolt has to be. Nothing in the act says if its another room two feet or ten feet

[TBD]

Originally Posted by tbd

a bolt action rifle is stored securely as long as the bolt is removed. (period)

So fish gunner - YES an rc could easily have "walked out" with totally secured weapons

.............

Tbd

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Not trying to bait any one.I understand "Alleged" lawer and media speak, till the courts aggree on a statement of fact . I understand stored and secured are two different things . Not all firearms were taken its that simple
we are talking the military and the police they have the means to secure EVERY firearm in high river, this is not the case as others have stated saves were left untouched. My point being a firearm in a safe is secure a properly stored rifle on a bed , in a closet is not secure.

Can you quote a law or two backing up your assertions and the providing the coppers a legal reason for doing what they did?

[fish gunner]

Secure means safe from theft. yes the fire arm may be stored safetly and legally. It appears that all one needed to do was enter and remove said firearm imo not secure. Two rifles one on a bed. one chained with 3/8 link to the wall, both are stored legally only one is secure.not legal speak not alleged actual one can be easily carried off the other requires a cutting torch.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by TBD

So fish gunner - YES an rc could easily have "walked out" with totally secured weapons

.............

Tbd

No they cant, with out tools. You refer to stored not secure. A rifle in a safe is secure a rifle with a trigger lock is legaly stored.

[elkhunter11]

Secure means safe from theft. yes the fire arm may be stored safetly and legally. It appears that all one needed to do was enter and remove said firearm imo not secure. Two rifles one on a bed. one chained to the wall, both are stored legally only one is secure.not legal speak not alleged actual one can be easily carried off the other requires a cutting torch.

No they cant, with out tools. You refer to stored not secure. A rifle in a safe is secure a rifle with a trigger lock is legaly stored.

Actually there were reports of firearms being secured by cable locks being taken, after the cables were cut. And no, you don't need a cutting torch to cut chain. If you have ever purchased chain in a store, you would know that.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually there were reports of firearms being secured by cable locks being taken, after the cables were cut. And no, you don't need a cutting torch to cut chain. If you have ever purchased chain in a store, you would know that.

"Allegedly" cut .toy dog chain perhaps,real chain requires a bit more force than the stuff off a roll in the isle at home hardware.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Secure means safe from theft. yes the fire arm may be stored safetly and legally. It appears that all one needed to do was enter and remove said firearm imo not secure. Two rifles one on a bed. one chained with 3/8 link to the wall, both are stored legally only one is secure.not legal speak not alleged actual one can be easily carried off the other requires a cutting torch.

So you are onside with the RCMP, just make the chit up as you go along?

[Kanonfodder]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Secure means safe from theft. yes the fire arm may be stored safetly and legally. It appears that all one needed to do was enter and remove said firearm imo not secure. Two rifles one on a bed. one chained with 3/8 link to the wall, both are stored legally only one is secure.not legal speak not alleged actual one can be easily carried off the other requires a cutting torch.

What you refer to is irrelevant the ONLY law of the land is the one provided PERIOD your opinion of what is secured is not the law

Private property was removed and the emergency act does not give the RCMP the authority to violate the Alberta Bill of Rights

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

No they cant, with out tools. You refer to stored not secure. A rifle in a safe is secure a rifle with a trigger lock is legaly stored.

What a complete f'king joke.

So when I go on holidays, or hell, go to work everyday, the RCMP can break in to my house and take my LEGALLY stored firearms, because you said they are not secure?

The whole thing stinks. Can't believe the two step that the RCMP are doing. Can't answer a simple question of who ordered the seizure.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

So you are onside with the RCMP, just make the chit up as you go along?

No not on any "side"I believe in erring on the side of caution when "allegations" are thrown around by the media Or any extreme political motivation. Inaction in times of emergency is always wrong. The objective has clearly been shown to secure unattended firearms. To the best of my knowledge all firearms have been returned with out the slightest incident. The media is pulling at sticks just to "alleged" a story. As high river was the worst affected I would expect the further the state of emergency gives for those in responsibility to act . I dont hear any one griping abought the uneeded closure of the sundre bridge during the flood (a act of caution ) this of course breeches our right of free passage ,but that would not fill any agenda.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

What a complete f'king joke.

So when I go on holidays, or hell, go to work everyday, the RCMP can break in to my house and take my LEGALLY stored firearms, because you said they are not secure?

The whole thing stinks. Can't believe the two step that the RCMP are doing. Can't answer a simple question of who ordered the seizure.

That is not even relitive to a town 8' under water now is it . Do you suggest it was just a normal june day in high river? ? Then the military and police showed up and started breeching homes . I have not seen the anger directed at the military that its been alleged done its own share of door breeching.

[TBD]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

To the best of my knowledge all firearms have been returned with out the slightest incident.

Aside from the front door being kicked in (1900 homes, est 3 million plus in property damage), and home owners left to cover these expenses themselves and also clean up the mess themselves. (no insurance will cover damage done by your friendly neighborhood RCMP officer that decides to kick in your front door) !

So to cause a homeowner, in some cases, $4K for a new front door and frame, because HR cops weren't sure if his/her firearms were "secured" is total UTTER BS !

TBD

PS ... do the math fish gunner roughly 600 firearms seized 1900 homes breached that's almost 1 in 3 TOO GOOD of success rate without the use of LGR data - for sure them homes were targeted ! and the cops who perpetrated this crime knew what they're entering those homes to TAKE ....

This was a blatent abuse of firearms owners rights !

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by TBD

Aside from the front door being kicked in (est 1900 homes, 3 mil plus in property damage), and home owners left to cover expenses - clean up the mess themselves. (no insurance will cover the damage done by an RC kicking in someones front door)

So to cause a homeowner, in some cases, $4K for a new front door and frame, because RC's weren't sure if his/her firearms were "secured" is total UTTER BS !

TBD

No, you" infer" homes only containing firearms were breeched. That would be false.

[rottie]

Originally Posted by TBD

Aside from the front door being kicked in (est 1900 homes, 3 mil plus in property damage), and home owners left to cover expenses - clean up the mess themselves. (no insurance will cover the damage done by an RC kicking in someones front door)

So to cause a homeowner, in some cases, $4K for a new front door and frame, because RC's weren't sure if his/her firearms were "secured" is total UTTER BS !

TBD

Kinda like vandalism isnt it ? Just done in the name of public safety,what a joke,can every cop involved. Civil action for damages against the individual officers who did this should be started

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by rottie

Kinda like vandalism isnt it ? Just done in the name of public safety,what a joke,can every cop involved. Civil action for damages against the individual officers who did this should be started

Armed forces too .

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

No not on any "side"I believe in erring on the side of caution when "allegations" are thrown around by the media Or any extreme political motivation. Inaction in times of emergency is always wrong. The objective has clearly been shown to secure unattended firearms. To the best of my knowledge all firearms have been returned with out the slightest incident. The media is pulling at sticks just to "alleged" a story. As high river was the worst affected I would expect the further the state of emergency gives for those in responsibility to act . I dont hear any one griping abought the uneeded closure of the sundre bridge during the flood (a act of caution ) this of course breeches our right of free passage ,but that would not fill any agenda.

Don't mean this in an ignorant way but I have noticed that ex military seem to end up on the side of "martial law" for lack of a better word or phrase. Part of the training I'm sure, I'm not surprised that most of the freedom loving people reject this tact. You said Inaction in times of emergency is always wrong. The objective has clearly been shown to secure unattended firearms. Why do you feel anything needed to be done about the guns, nothing was done in any other jurisdiction, only the RCMP's, why do you feel it was justified?