Mounties to make gun grabs policy

[hillbillyreefer]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/07/1...n-grabs-policy

Mounties to make gun grabs policy

BY LORNE GUNTER ,QMI AGENCY
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JULY 12, 2014 06:00 PM CDT

Floods water. (QMI Agency)
Mounties in Alberta are set to update their policy manuals regarding disaster response “in the very near future.” In light of the devastating floods that roared through the southern third of the province in the summer of 2013, that’s probably wise.

But the draft manual (obtained through access to information by independent firearms researcher Dennis Young) shows that RCMP’s K Division is intent on making gun grabbing a permanent part of its disaster action plan.

Since it remains a criminal offence in Canada to store a gun in your home without a trigger lock or outside a locked cabinet, the Mountie manual urges officers in the middle of a rescue operation to round up all the guns the see.

“You may seize any item in plain view that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence, if there is a pre-existing lawful reason for intrusion upon the person or premises,” the document claims.

No doubt the Mounties will argue that once they have been asked by local emergency officials to go door-to-door to hunt for survivors, that satisfies the requirement of a “pre-existing lawful reason."

You might think after the hornets’ nest the RCMP stirred up in High River last year they would stay away from grabbing private property from private homes, but not so.

The manual also says any evidence collected by Mounties while scouring for survivors in evacuated towns must have been discovered “inadvertently” and must be “immediately apparent as incriminating evidence.”

In other words, Mounties can’t go looking for guns or meth labs or pinched credit cards. And they can’t examine private property to determine whether it is criminal. They have to know it’s criminal before touching it.

Both the existing and draft Mountie disaster handbooks rely on the “plain view doctrine,” a largely Common Law definition of what police can seize without a warrant. No doubt the RCMP believe “plain view” covers all their sins in High River, and that is why they are eager to codify it in their new manual.

But the plain-view doctrine as understood by Canadian courts is quite narrow.

Anything a Canadian “knowingly exposes to the public or abandons in a public place,” is deemed to be in plain view. Or anything a “peace officer … observes by use of one or more of his senses from a lawful vantage point,” is in plain view.

But here’s something I’m calling the “panty drawer doctrine”: If a Mountie is in a house without a warrant because he’s looking for survivors of disaster (legitimate), and he starts rifling through places no survivor would ever be able to hide – like underwear drawers, gun cabinets and fridges – then his actions are no longer covered by the “pre-existing lawful reason” for him to be in the home.

Nor is his discovery of any evidence “inadvertent.”

Similarly, if the Mounties search a home without a warrant after the immediate threat to human safety has passed, then they are not in a “lawful vantage point.” So they can take nothing they see – not even a giant metal tank labelled “Meth Cooking Equipment.”

If they go back to a home two or three times (as they did in High River), after they have already searched it once and found no survivors, then again they are not there as a result of the emergency. They can’t take stuff.

And if they target specific homes for warrantless searches because national police computers tell them firearms owners live there, then their purpose for entering the home is not protection of life and limb. It is an illegal search, pure and simple.

No policy manual can justify what happened in High River.

[openfire]

So they didn't make gun grabs policy.
They headline is just click bait.

[hillbillyreefer]

Not really, just wrote down that grabbing private property in house they break into is now "policy".

Reinforcing the fact that you have zero property rights in this country.

I wonder how many folks will stay behind in disasters just to keep the cops out of their houses?

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Not really, just wrote down that grabbing private property in house they break into is now "policy".

?

Where does it say that?? Please highlight anywhere it says they can take legal property stored by the book?

If something is owned by you AND illegal AND in plain view, then yes they don't give a hoot about your "property" rights. (Take note illegal drug aficionados)

The last 3-5 paragraphs are quite clear on what is considered plain view and how nothing in this policy would protect RCMP if they were guilty of breaking into a gun safe and confiscating legal private property. Or other possible high river scenarios

If anything this policy will help the average joe or Sally (or criminal) organize better storage methods in case of emergencies. Ie not in plain sight if it's illegal!

[bison]

Unless i invite you in I say stay out of my G-damm house ..period!
Especially cops.

[Forest Techer]

^ Good! Agreed. Change whatever public safety laws allows this or create a universal "house is cleared -no drugs or injured people inside" sign that must be obeyed.

Still not going to fix the in "plain view" issue with private property.

[silverdoctor]

Policy is the key word here... How many policies do we deal with at the end of the day. Try to bring a clothing stuff back to a store, chances are a policy requires recording ID for the return - but if you buck the policy, they generally won't refuse you. And how many employees back the policy as it's their job?

What about mandatory evacuation? What happens in the next major event and people are actually forced from their homes under mandatory evac? At the moment they seem to leave people be, the ones that are willing to take their chances. Police are allowed to lie to Canadians, and the fact that most Canadians don't know the laws of the country - being told "leave or you'll be under arrest" will ring hard in the ears.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the next major event in Canada.

[marxman]

i dont see anything in there except that the rcmp didnt know their job in the first place now they are being told

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

Where does it say that?? Please highlight anywhere it says they can take legal property stored by the book?

If something is owned by you AND illegal AND in plain view, then yes they don't give a hoot about your "property" rights. (Take note illegal drug aficionados)

The last 3-5 paragraphs are quite clear on what is considered plain view and how nothing in this policy would protect RCMP if they were guilty of breaking into a gun safe and confiscating legal private property. Or other possible high river scenarios

If anything this policy will help the average joe or Sally (or criminal) organize better storage methods in case of emergencies. Ie not in plain sight if it's illegal!

What about the guns that were trigger locked in HR they stole? What about the ones hidden in places too small for humans that they sniffed out and stole in HR?
None of these guns were in plain view until the horseshoes busted open the homes and started to search. Pretty sad when "in plain view" means the authorities had to break into your private home to see it.

Who is going to charge the RCMP if they do break the law?

In an evacuation situation they could frame whoever they want to. Just plant something illegal and charge away, doesn't matter if they get a conviction. The crown will ruin you financially.

The police have enough power over us, why do some insist on allowing them unlimited power in certain situations?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

What about the guns that were trigger locked in HR they stole? What about the ones hidden in places too small for humans that they sniffed out and stole in HR?

Who is going to charge the RCMP if they do break the law?

In an evacuation situation they could frame whoever they want to. Just plant something illegal and charge away, doesn't matter if they get a conviction. The crown will ruin you financially.

The police have enough power over us, why do some insist on allowing them unlimited power in certain situations?

Not to mention all the ammunition that was destroyed without compensation.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Not to mention all the ammunition that was destroyed without compensation.

Some of it was in view, therefore you should be deprived of your property. Come on silverdoctor, this is Canada. The land of no property rights and a citizenship that doesn't believe that their property should be theirs.

[3blade]

Disgusting.

From the words of my grandfather (a retired eps cop) : "what the hell do we need politicians for if the laws are going to be made up by some ******** mountie dictatorship!"

Long past due to send the royal mounting gestapo out of Alberta.

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

What about the guns that were trigger locked in HR they stole? What about the ones hidden in places too small for humans that they sniffed out and stole in HR?
None of these guns were in plain view until the horseshoes busted open the homes and started to search. Pretty sad when "in plain view" means the authorities had to break into your private home to see it.

Who is going to charge the RCMP if they do break the law?

In an evacuation situation they could frame whoever they want to. Just plant something illegal and charge away, doesn't matter if they get a conviction. The crown will ruin you financially.

The police have enough power over us, why do some insist on allowing them unlimited power in certain situations?

I don't disagree. But I see nothing in the article you posted which solidifies that looking for or confiscating legally stored firearms is a matter of policy. Then or now.

This article says nothing new or surprising.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Disgusting.

From the words of my grandfather (a retired eps cop) : "what the hell do we need politicians for if the laws are going to be made up by some ******** mountie dictatorship!"

Long past due to send the royal mounting gestapo out of Alberta.

To be replaced by????? The provincial gestapo lo Its quite simple exceed safe storage with secure storage . Not a single word of a safe being carried away store firearms at the lowest level and in a worse case scenario they could be removed as it is classified as safe storage big difference from secured storage . Im quite sure if a state of emergency is declared the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. Sad really a town devistated by flooding and folks are moaning abought fornt doors and a few hundred firearms. First world moan .

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

I don't disagree. But I see nothing in the article you posted which solidifies that looking for or confiscating legally stored firearms is a matter of policy. Then or now.

This article says nothing new or surprising.

Good enough. I just posted exactly what Gunter wrote and was published in the Winnipeg Sun.

My personal feelings are the horseshoes should stay the H out of my home and off my property unless armed with a warrant, or I invite them in. Allowing them to make their own rules of engagement is unacceptable. Whether it be search and seizure or stealing a legally acquired approved classic green or 858 years after the fact. M

[wasteland.soldier]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Sad really a town devistated by flooding and folks are moaning abought fornt doors and a few hundred firearms. First world moan .

That's a pretty weak argument.

Two people are discussing property taxes. Do you run in and say "ahh! There's people with nothing in Africa! First world problems!"

Two people are discussing a recent hail storm. Do you run in and say "ahh! The Gaza Strip is getting pounded with airstrikes! First world problems!"

I sure hope not.

There have been many threads about the devastating impact of the floods. Who are you to tell people that a year later they shouldn't be discussing one of the details of what happened and what may happen the next time around?

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by wasteland.soldier

That's a pretty weak argument.

Two people are discussing property taxes. Do you run in and say "ahh! There's people with nothing in Africa! First world problems!"

Two people are discussing a recent hail storm. Do you run in and say "ahh! The Gaza Strip is getting pounded with airstrikes! First world problems!"

I sure hope not.

There have been many threads about the devastating impact of the floods. Who are you to tell people that a year later they shouldn't be discussing one of the details of what happened and what may happen the next time around?

Like you im giving my thoughts. Unlike you I added to the subject of the discussion as opposed to picking at the quoted post I have every right to not exceed the form rules . Hbr has me on ignore any way and hes op.

[Grizzly Adams]

Think a lot of people are pretty non nonchalant about their property rights. In the case of the missing boy and his grandparents, cops were looking for people who bought something at the estate sale to come forward with a picture of any item they bought. Next thing you know, they were conducting property searches of anyone who came forward. Then they have the balls to complain that only about half have contacted them.

Grizz

[wasteland.soldier]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Like you im giving my thoughts. Unlike you I added to the subject of the discussion as opposed to picking at the quoted post I have every right to not exceed the form rules . Hbr has me on ignore any way and hes op.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But I do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

[wasteland.soldier]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Think a lot of people are pretty non nonchalant about their property rights. In the case of the missing boy and his grandparents, cops were looking for people who bought something at the estate sale to come forward with a picture of any item they bought. Next thing you know, they were conducting property searches of anyone who came forward. Then they have the balls to complain that only about half have contacted them.

Grizz

Do you have any links on this? Not that I think you're making it up, I'm just amazed that they'd be so willing to have such a chilling effect on public cooperation in future investigations!

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by wasteland.soldier

i'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But i do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

lol

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by wasteland.soldier

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion. But I do have the right to point out when it's a dumb one.

Iyo....

[qwert]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

In the case of the missing boy and his grandparents, cops were looking for people who bought something at the estate sale to come forward with a picture of any item they bought. Next thing you know, they were conducting property searches of anyone who came forward.

More information please.

[bison]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

^ Good! Agreed. Change whatever public safety laws allows this or create a universal "house is cleared -no drugs or injured people inside" sign that must be obeyed.

Still not going to fix the in "plain view" issue with private property.

What is so hard to understand for these idiots what "private property" stands for.
Anything comes only in to "plain view" when you break down doors and go in.

Just a simple sign on the door or window should suffice

Do not violate my property.
"This house is vacant"
No people or animals inside.

[DoubleU]

Can someone here please explain to me why this is a big deal or "bad" idea?

I honestly could care less if the RCMP took my guns for safe keeping during a disaster. I cant speak for everyone in High River but people were looting the S&*T out of the houses there, how many of your guns do you think would be missing had they not been held until they could be taken somewhere safe? Guns are a unique property so I dont need to hear about jewellery etc but guns are a property that criminals and organized crime love to have in their possession.

People are complaining about nothing. Get over it its not like they are stealing them. The point has been missed entirely by your "rights" complaints. Next time your house floods take your guns with you then instead of the evil government "stealing" them from you. This topic has been beaten to death.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by DoubleU

Can someone here please explain to me why this is a big deal or "bad" idea?

I honestly could care less if the RCMP took my guns for safe keeping during a disaster. I cant speak for everyone in High River but people were looting the S&*T out of the houses there, how many of your guns do you think would be missing had they not been held until they could be taken somewhere safe? Guns are a unique property so I dont need to hear about jewellery etc but guns are a property that criminals and organized crime love to have in their possession.

People are complaining about nothing. Get over it its not like they are stealing them. The point has been missed entirely by your "rights" complaints. Next time your house floods take your guns with you then instead of the evil government "stealing" them from you. This topic has been beaten to death.

Had people been told upfront and being given a choice in the matter, it may have been looked upon differently. Choice being the key here. The police lied outright, caused unnecessary damages to homes and lost alot of trust due to the way they handled it.

People realized the hard way that property rights mean nothing.

[DoubleU]

Originally Posted by bison

What is so hard to understand for these idiots what "private property" stands for.
Anything comes only in to "plain view" when you break down doors and go in.

Just a simple sign on the door or window should suffice

Do not violate my property.
"This house is vacant"
No people or animals inside.

RCMP, military etc entered homes to ensure there was noone who was unable to exit themselves inside. They didnt kick every single door in High River. They kicked the doors of houses in the impact zone to ensure noone was dead inside, trapped or unable to get out themself. With noway of relocking the doors taking the firearms was the best decision that could be made.

Would it of made sense to leave notes on doors saying "This house is vacant", sure, but at the time people panicked and noone did it. A simple sign would have sufficed if it was done, but in High River it wasn't so I think the best situation unfolded.

[pseelk]

Elkhunter,Wanna take this one?^^^^^^^^

[DoubleU]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Had people been told upfront and being given a choice in the matter, it may have been looked upon differently. Choice being the key here. The police lied outright, caused unnecessary damages to homes and lost alot of trust due to the way they handled it.

People realized the hard way that property rights mean nothing.

This was a time sensitive situation with people dispersed everywhere. All of the damages from doors, to locks to dirty carpets in written off houses were replaced at the cost of the government. Property doesn't mean anything when life comes first. Blaming the police entirely for this also isn't fair considering ive heard the military doing much of the "property crimes" you describe.

A decision was made under exigent circumstances. Whether the decision was right or wrong I still believe to some degree the right action was taken.

[DoubleU]

Originally Posted by pseelk

Elkhunter,Wanna take this one?^^^^^^^^

Lets go, give it to me. Sees im the only one on this forum with a different opinion other than the Police being Nazis.