Mounties to make gun grabs policy

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Whee-o good thing its an opinion. Happily mine was tested repeatedly, And found to be above average, But thanks for the concern.

So just how many times did you have to have your IQ tested until you got the 101??



I'm just kidding....couldn't resist a ball just sitting over the plate like that.



By the way, excellent post Sneeze. This isn't JUST about guns, but about the erosion/elimination of citizen's rights that has been going on for years, and is slowly gaining momentum as more and more people get used to the idea of being supplicants...just like in England (can't help but think it's genetic, since all the good dna jumped ship in the 1700's)

[tri777]

* Note to self:
Leave keys to house in door knob during any/all mandatory evacuations*

[bigd]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

Being a Mounty mean's never having to admit you did something wrong.

It's Mountie, and hey, the job has to have some perks.

[Dozer31]

Did every one get their guns back?

[benamen]

Originally Posted by tri777

* Note to self:
Leave keys to house in door knob during any/all mandatory evacuations*

Unlocked doors were still kicked in. You are willing to trust the mounties with th3 keys to your house. They would never lose them

[Forest Techer]

“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."

DONT ASK THE MOUNTIES TO DO ANYTHING! They are PASSIVE in this situation. Get on your representatives about when and what they ask the RCMP to do.

Everyone should be clear about the rules of the game here. If you have a safe destroyed and your guns confiscated by the RCMP it would seem like an open and shut cases according to their very own "policy". (I will be as disappointed as anyone if a case where it's been proven an RCMP Officer broke open a safe in order to seize guns was thrown out) Your property does not give you carte Blanche to break the laws. If you leave a handgun on the hood of your truck on your farm 200m off the road while you go to the movies and someone sees it guess what, thats still illegal. Who can see it??? Paperboy, ,mailman, power company, BALLOONISTS!!

People are excitedly conflating 2 issues. (Neither of which this article actually deals with)
1 When and if and under whose authority should there be allowed emergency measures to enter your home without consent.

2 Wether or not any legal ramifications should be considered if a search is done in an unrelated emergency case.

My opinion
1 - never unless human life is directly known to be in peril
2 - if so then it would have to be nuanced, firefighters have reported finding some awful things - and those people would be Scot free to destroy any evidence if it couldn't be reported or acted on.

[roper1]

Not sure if all guns were returned, but absolutely some guns were damaged in the seizure. I know of hunting rifles w big blemishes on stocks & barrels, worse yet very old non-functional heirloom guns w damage. Hard to allocate funds for fix-up when still trying to cover bigger expenses. The boys really messed up & no one believes we are immune in the future.

[Stumpjumper]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

“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."

DONT ASK THE MOUNTIES TO DO ANYTHING! They are PASSIVE in this situation. Get on your representatives about when and what they ask the RCMP to do.

Everyone should be clear about the rules of the game here. If you have a safe destroyed and your guns confiscated by the RCMP it would seem like an open and shut cases according to their very own "policy". (I will be as disappointed as anyone if a case where it's been proven an RCMP Officer broke open a safe in order to seize guns was thrown out) Your property does not give you carte Blanche to break the laws. If you leave a handgun on the hood of your truck on your farm 200m off the road while you go to the movies and someone sees it guess what, thats still illegal. Who can see it??? Paperboy, ,mailman, power company, BALLOONISTS!!

People are excitedly conflating 2 issues. (Neither of which this article actually deals with)
1 When and if and under whose authority should there be allowed emergency measures to enter your home without consent.

2 Wether or not any legal ramifications should be considered if a search is done in an unrelated emergency case.

My opinion
1 - never unless human life is directly known to be in peril
2 - if so then it would have to be nuanced, firefighters have reported finding some awful things - and those people would be Scot free to destroy any evidence if it couldn't be reported or acted on.

So we should surrender rights to avoid unresonable search and siezure because of what ifs?

What if we don't want to live in a police state?

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by bigd

It's Mountie, and hey, the job has to have some perks.

meh; mounty /mountie/ ______,whatever ,it's really just a slang Hollyword anyway. yerself

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by Stumpjumper

So we should surrender rights to avoid unresonable search and siezure because of what ifs?

What if we don't want to live in a police state?

?? I said "never" to the question of when should police be able to search your residence under so called emergency circumstances without consent or a warrant.

But the relevance of what ifs is because everyone is fine with liberty and due process until the wind blows a different way is all. Maybe some are selectively touchy because the current issue is with firearms.

This is the same issue as the speed limits for me, feels like the nanny state being over protective. Would be nice to see the public flex a muscle and move some pieces in the right direction for once (less regulation. Less safety). The RCMP is a political organization. The public could change almost anything if u motivate a majority of people.

[calgarychef]

So when can a local government ask Mounties to " go in." According to what I understand local governments can't call a state of emergency, it's up to federal government to do so. Based on that simple matter the high river gun grab was in fact break and entry.

[calgarychef]

So the Gestapo are still circling the wagons huh? Shameful. I wonder what kind of dangerous surprises they'll find the next time it floods?

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by bigd

It's Mountie, and hey, the job has to have some perks.

Bold of you to say such a statement.

Were you called to High Riger BigD? I know that some of your friends were.

Curious signature line. Too bad you are too cowardly to ever live it.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Bold of you to say such a statement.

Were you called to High Riger BigD? I know that some of your friends were.

Curious signature line. Too bad you are too cowardly to ever live it.

Heck of an assumption .... do you know the member in questions did not make his feelings heard or act in some way to assist those in need??? You know what they say abought assumed ..

[elkhunter11]

The bottom line is that the actions of the RCMP at High River, will result in people's lives being put in danger during future floods or fires. People that don't want their property taken, will either refuse to leave their homes, or they will delay leaving, to pack up all of their firearms to take with them. Eventually, lives will be lost, because the public is more concerned about being robbed by the RCMP ,than being robbed by some other criminals.

[Lornce]

I'm slightly confused here, shouldn't having a locked door in you house also constitute having you firearm locked up? I know we need trigger locks on all firearms but it seems to me that first level of a secure house should actually be enough. There was a time I had a gun cabinet with glass doors for viewing and a lock but the "plain view" now bothers me. I know guys with a locked room in a locked house.

Its getting to the point where the "serve and protect" it turning into find something to charge them with.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by Lornce

I'm slightly confused here, shouldn't having a locked door in you house also constitute having you firearm locked up? I know we need trigger locks on all firearms but it seems to me that first level of a secure house should actually be enough. There was a time I had a gun cabinet with glass doors for viewing and a lock but the "plain view" now bothers me. I know guys with a locked room in a locked house.

Its getting to the point where the "serve and protect" it turning into find something to charge them with.

You don't need trigger locks on all firearms for them to be stored legally

[Ricktye]

Appreciate it if you could perhaps give an example of one law MADE by the RCMP? Now, they are charged with enforcing the laws the your political masters (you put them in power) put in place but sorry, no police force can MAKE laws....

If you don't like the laws, I suppose you better elect a different MLA or MP.

R...

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.

[Dick284]

Put it in as policy.....hmmmmmm

The perfect way to guarantee that when the next disaster happens a whole lot of people will refuse to evacuate.... Thus causing a very interesting scenario......

That there is some serious progress on a contentious issue......NOT!

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

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.

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

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.

There's no evidence of this.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

So why were the houses un-effected by the flood searched?

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

So why were the houses un-effected by the flood searched?

To see if they were flooded? I was there the first day residents were allowed to return helping a friend. Her house didn't have any sewer backup but nearly every other house on the street did. There was no way to know this looking at the exterior.

Her house had been entered and the main breaker shut off prior to electrical service being restored to the area. There was also a structural assessment done on all of the houses to make sure they were safe to enter before people were allowed in. Imagine how weak an OSB floor is going to be after being submerged in water for a week.

[sask]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

This is a joke or sarcasm right ?

Can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that crap they were shoveling out recently

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

The reason for this has been explained a bunch of times, it's just not getting through the bubble I guess. They did the initial sweep to check for people and they returned to inspect for structural damage, make sure it was safe to turn power back on, etc. This was explained explicitly in the interview Ross Sharpka did with Dave Taylor last month.



There's no evidence of this.

Since when have RCMP officers been qualified to judge the structural integrity of a home? What qualifies them to know if it's safe to turn the power back on? This is just another pathetic attempt to justify their actions.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by sask

This is a joke or sarcasm right ?

Can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that crap they were shoveling out recently

No I was there and I know what I saw.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Since when have RCMP officers been qualified to judge the structural integrity of a home?

They provided escort for the inspectors.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

They provided escort for the inspectors.

So why weren't the inspectors present in the videos showing the RCMP removing firearms from homes?

[sask]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

They provided escort for the inspectors.

So from the 26th of June until homeowners where allowed back in they escorted them to 1300 homes (and kicked in those doors) ?

Did NOT search for firearms - the muddy tracks through the houses (the ones NOT flooded) including up into 2nd floor rooms , into closets , etc.

I'm not saying that what you said did not happen in some cases .....but not all.

You might want to have a look at a couple of officers notes, obtained under FOI , which indicated multiple entries in unflooded homes, seizure of firearms but NO mention of accompanying anyone

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Put it in as policy.....hmmmmmm

The perfect way to guarantee that when the next disaster happens a whole lot of people will refuse to evacuate.... Thus causing a very interesting scenario......

That there is some serious progress on a contentious issue......NOT!

Good Point Dick.

Another Unintended Consequence of a law.

[sask]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

No I was there and I know what I saw.

You were there and saw them hard entry 1300 homes ?