Mounties to make gun grabs policy

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by 375ph

I agree, I always trigger lock all my guns and then lock them in my safe. If I could more I would. Any suggestions.

I don't get it?

Did you read the article? Are you aware what's mandatory as far as safe storage? That's all that's required. Anything that's legally stored or even just out of plain view is exempt from this article, this policy and the point of the thread.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

I don't get it?

Did you read the article? Are you aware what's mandatory as far as safe storage? That's all that's required. Anything that's legally stored or even just out of plain view is exempt from this article, this policy and the point of the thread.

Except stuff they removed from closets and drawers in HR. What about the ammo they confiscated and destroyed?

What are criteria to keep the horseshoes from stealing and destroying your ammunition?

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Except stuff they removed from closets and drawers in HR. What about the ammo they confiscated and destroyed?

What are criteria to keep the horseshoes from stealing and destroying your ammunition?

Stored securely, simple stuff . Want your house made to minimum code or would you like the minimum requirement exceeded. I like to be above the required standard myself.

[Scar270]

It's one thing to exceed the minimums, it's another to have the RCMP break down your door and take your property that meets those requirements. Not to mention now write it into policy that they intend to lay charges while in your home without a warrant, or as near as I can tell, any real legal grounds to be there.

Checking for structural integrity doesn't seem to be legal grounds to me. Why can't a home owner come open the door for a structural inspection.

They claimed to be breaking down doors because they didn't have time to wait for locksmiths, yet they had time to catalogue guns and escort inspectors through the house? A lot of stories that add up to just a whole lot of conflicting lies.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Scar270

It's one thing to exceed the minimums, it's another to have the RCMP break down your door and take your property that meets those requirements. Not to mention now write it into policy that they intend to lay charges while in your home without a warrant, or as near as I can tell, any real legal grounds to be there.

Checking for structural integrity doesn't seem to be legal grounds to me. Why can't a home owner come open the door for a structural inspection.

They claimed to be breaking down doors because they didn't have time to wait for locksmiths, yet they had time to catalogue guns and escort inspectors through the house? A lot of stories that add up to just a whole lot of conflicting lies.

Secure is secure, irrelivant of law or interpretation. Bolted to the floor behind 3" of steel thats secure .a trigger lock in the closet is safe. Lets not forget houses with out firearms were also entered. Why are we not highlighting that aspect also.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Stored securely, simple stuff . Want your house made to minimum code or would you like the minimum requirement exceeded. I like to be above the required standard myself.

Legal is legal, whether you meet the minimum legal requirement, or whether you exceed the minimum legal requirement.

[BANG]

Or how about we take it one step further, regardless of how they where stored and say its my stuff in my house you take it and you are a god damn thief .
What goes on in my home is no ones damn business but my own.I yearn to live in a free country one day.

Yes all this bull**** shoved down our throats gets frustrating as hell.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Legal is legal, whether you meet the minimum legal requirement, or whether you exceed the minimum legal requirement.

Yep right till the river is lapping at the second floor stairs and a few houses move down stream . Dont forget some thanked the police. its basied on pov.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by BANG

Or how about we take it one step further, regardless of how they where stored and say its my stuff in my house you take it and you are a god damn thief .
What goes on in my home is no ones damn business but my own.I yearn to live in a free country one day.

Yes all this bull**** shoved down our throats gets frustrating as hell.

Oh so if an emergency occurs say the century flood they will just let you deal with your stuff with no insurance or such to . Because its your stuff no one else's responsibility. Hmm wonder how many doors the armed forces breeched. Lets look.http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...ing-a-war-zone . Hmm war zone that sound a little out of every day high river.

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Except stuff they removed from closets and drawers in HR. What about the ammo they confiscated and destroyed?

What are criteria to keep the horseshoes from stealing and destroying your ammunition?

See you are the one derailing your own thread. Read the policy and tell me where it says they are allowed to do any of that stuff??? It specifically spells out parameters that would be needed to allow any confiscation. The question should be "under what circumstance, if any, could ammunition by itself be seized under the proposed policy?"

When I said take measures in a previous post regarding storage, partially what I meant was along the lines of putting a seal on a closet if You evacuate, surveillance camera onto remote HD, Taking photos etc. so that if police were to go rogue You would have pretty damning evidence. You shouldn't be obliged to do this, but if someone has trouble sleeping at night worrying about what the RCMP May do to you this seems like cheap peace of mind.

[roper1]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

See you are the one derailing your own thread. Read the policy and tell me where it says they are allowed to do any of that stuff??? It specifically spells out parameters that would be needed to allow any confiscation. The question should be "under what circumstance, if any, could ammunition by itself be seized under the proposed policy?"

When I said take measures in a previous post regarding storage, partially what I meant was along the lines of putting a seal on a closet if You evacuate, surveillance camera onto remote HD, Taking photos etc. so that if police were to go rogue You would have pretty damning evidence. You shouldn't be obliged to do this, but if someone has trouble sleeping at night worrying about what the RCMP May do to you this seems like cheap peace of mind.

This so clearly shows the problem. Why on Earth should we distrust the ones sworn to protect us; because they have proven themselves untrustworthy time & again. The parallels between the RCMP and the defunct Canadian Airborne are clear. The military is highly respected without the Airborne & lots of city police forces are respected because they are accountable. Time for a change IMO

[elkhunter11]

Yep right till the river is lapping at the second floor stairs and a few houses move down stream

Which does nothing to change the fact, that meeting the minimum legal standards is still legal.

Oh so if an emergency occurs say the century flood they will just let you deal with your stuff with no insurance or such to . Because its your stuff no one else's responsibility.

If you went way beyond the minimum legal standard, and trigger locked your firearms, and left them in a safe in the basement, nobody including the RCMP would bother to try and steal them, and they would be ruined. Going above the minimum legal standard wouldn't have helped prevent that.

Hmm wonder how many doors the armed forces breeched.

If you had bothered to read the statements posted by one of the actual soldiers that was in High River during the flood, he stated that the military did not break into any homes, and they did not remove any firearms.

Yet again, your arguments are totally lacking, where logic is concerned.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Which does nothing to change the fact, that meeting the minimum legal standards is still legal.



If you went way beyond the minimum legal standard, and trigger locked your firearms, and left them in a safe in the basement, nobody including the RCMP would bother to try and steal them, and they would be ruined. Going above the minimum legal standard wouldn't have helped prevent that.
Far from true lots of water proof safe's


If you had bothered to read the statements posted by one of the actual soldiers that was in High River during the flood, he stated that the military did not break into any homes, and they did not remove any firearms.
Alleged ,your doing it again

Yet again, your arguments are totally lacking, where logic is concerned.

and you miss the fact that every house on the cordon was breeched nulifyes the targeting of firearm owner , the link I just posted suggests the armed forces were assisting the RC's searching houses. And logically how many fire arms were saved ny the actions of the RCMP. NOW THATS LOGIC.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Which does nothing to change the fact, that meeting the minimum legal standards is still legal.



If you went way beyond the minimum legal standard, and trigger locked your firearms, and left them in a safe in the basement, nobody including the RCMP would bother to try and steal them, and they would be ruined. Going above the minimum legal standard wouldn't have helped prevent that.



If you had bothered to read the statements posted by one of the actual soldiers that was in High River during the flood, he stated that the military did not break into any homes, and they did not remove any firearms.

Yet again, your arguments are totally lacking, where logic is concerned.

Do not waste your time on him, his arguments are just that, arguments. He is the same as BigDaddyBadger, MtnGiant and a host of others, they don't really care about anything they discuss, there only goal is to aggravate as many members on here as they can. It wont be long and he will end up the same way as the others "banned".

For a while they just tip toe on the edge of being punted, but they just cant help themselves, and eventually their ignorance does them in, they cross the line, and they are gone............or completely ignore members like him, and they will move onto another message board.

[elkhunter11]

And logically how many fire arms were saved ny the actions of the RCMP. NOW THATS LOGIC.

By the time that the RCMP removed any firearms, the flood was over a week old, and if the water hadn't reached the forearms yet, it wasn't likely going to reach them. As well, the city was being guarded by the RCMP. Therefore, in reality, if the firearms had been left where the RCMP had found them, they would have remained there in the same condition as the RCMP found them, which in many cases, was in better condition, that they were, when they were recovered from the RCMP.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

By the time that the RCMP removed any firearms, the flood was over a week old, and if the water hadn't reached the forearms yet, it wasn't likely going to reach them. As well, the city was being guarded by the RCMP. Therefore, in reality, if the firearms had been left where the RCMP had found them, they would have remained there in the same condition as the RCMP found them, which in many cases, was in better condition, that they were, when they were recovered from the RCMP.

link on dates please.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Secure is secure, irrelivant of law or interpretation. Bolted to the floor behind 3" of steel thats secure .a trigger lock in the closet is safe. Lets not forget houses with out firearms were also entered. Why are we not highlighting that aspect also.

May as well outlaw having pl/pd on a vehicle, cuz 10 million liability and full coverage is better. Legal is legal, why is that such an issue with you. If you want to go above and beyond and be a model boy scout then by all means go ahead, but don't throw the guy under the bus who is also being legal, but not legal enough by your opinion

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

link on dates please.

Do you mean to tell us that you are here arguing the details, and you can't even find the dates for yourself?

[benamen]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

and you miss the fact that every house on the cordon was breeched nulifyes the targeting of firearm owner , the link I just posted suggests the armed forces were assisting the RC's searching houses. And logically how many fire arms were saved ny the actions of the RCMP. NOW THATS LOGIC.

I guess if you mentioned how many guns were stolen from the other towns during the flood, your suggestion that the police saved some firearms might hold water. But if the police would have allowed the home owner back into their homes as was done in other flooded communities, theft would not have been a concern either.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Do not waste your time on him, his arguments are just that, arguments. He is the same as BigDaddyBadger, MtnGiant and a host of others, they don't really care about anything they discuss, there only goal is to aggravate as many members on here as they can. It wont be long and he will end up the same way as the others "banned".

For a while they just tip toe on the edge of being punted, but they just cant help themselves, and eventually their ignorance does them in, they cross the line, and they are gone............or completely ignore members like him, and they will move onto another message board.

I care vehemently about this . I was front line in another city on these days trying to save my friends house . Sadly we failed ,so ive just spent the last year helping rebuild a basement . We dealt with the RC's for three days, professional and helpful. So the fact that less than 1000 firearms were secured in a city of near 15000 speaks to the reality of mostly loose firearms bing secured what percent were extensively searched for. how many were on kitchen tables , beds ect ect. Lets not forget the Rc's were also thanked by a few. So im not here for a quarrel. im here for the truth. I understand situational command to an extent make a decision and act ... its that simple. What is being suggested is a gun grab , I suggest the armed forces and the RC's have the means to apprehend every fire arm in high river over the petiod of time in question this is not the case and closely reflects the securement of loose firearms as suggested. Did they over step , you bet . was it illegal ..thats for the courts to decide. I allegedly suggest.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

May as well outlaw having pl/pd on a vehicle, cuz 10 million liability and full coverage is better. Legal is legal, why is that such an issue with you. If you want to go above and beyond and be a model boy scout then by all means go ahead, but don't throw the guy under the bus who is also being legal, but not legal enough by your opinion

secure is not an opinion its a big steel box bolted to the ground or floor. Secure is not a legalize thing its chrome vadnium and stainless. Not one secure fire arm was touched by the RC'S in high river. Its a fact .

[elkhunter11]

. Lets not forget the Rc's were also thanked by a few.

So out of a city of around 15,000, a "few" people thanked the RCMP. That leaves well over 14,000 people that didn't thank them. And a lot more than a few people showed up at the meeting after the flood, to express their displeasure concerning the actions of the RCMP at High River.

secure is not an opinion its a big steel box bolted to the ground or floor. Secure is not a legalize thing its chrome vadnium and stainless. Not one secure fire arm was touched by the RC'S in high river. Its a fact .

Fortunately, where the legal storage of firearms is concerned, your version of secure is totally irrelevant, and meaningless. Nobody cares what you think, all that matters is that a person stores his firearms according to the actual regulations.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

See you are the one derailing your own thread. Read the policy and tell me where it says they are allowed to do any of that stuff??? It specifically spells out parameters that would be needed to allow any confiscation. The question should be "under what circumstance, if any, could ammunition by itself be seized under the proposed policy?"

When I said take measures in a previous post regarding storage, partially what I meant was along the lines of putting a seal on a closet if You evacuate, surveillance camera onto remote HD, Taking photos etc. so that if police were to go rogue You would have pretty damning evidence. You shouldn't be obliged to do this, but if someone has trouble sleeping at night worrying about what the RCMP May do to you this seems like cheap peace of mind.

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.

So now the question becomes is kicking in the front door of a private home after flood waters have receded a lawful act? I will guarantee that during the next disaster the horseshoes will claim it is, in the name of public safety, think of the children, blah, blah, blah.

What gave them the right to seize and destroy ammunition? This policy or the previous "make it up as you go" policy doesn't give anyone the right to steal and destroy legally owned property, not even ammunition.

Why would any reasonable person suggest that security devices and cameras need to be installed in order to protect the average joe from the police? Sounds like a place I don't want to live.

On that note I will not S T F U as a couple nanny statists on this board would like, I will continue to fight for my freedoms.

[Scar270]

Care to back up your definition of secure with a definition from the firearms act or another piece of legislation that defines that as secure?

Until you define that you can't determine if any "secure" guns were taken, as you will just change your definition.

I feel a trigger locked gun in a closet in a locked house is secure, but obviously you do not, and I can't find a legal definition, so ball is in your court, back up your opinion of secure with legal definition in a related piece of legislation or case law.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

secure is not an opinion its a big steel box bolted to the ground or floor. Secure is not a legalize thing its chrome vadnium and stainless. Not one secure fire arm was touched by the RC'S in high river. Its a fact .

*[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 who gets to decide when legal isn't legal anymore.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So out of a city of around 15,000, a "few" people thanked the RCMP. That leaves well over 14,000 people that didn't thank them. And a lot more than a few people showed up at the meeting after the flood, to express their displeasure concerning the actions of the RCMP at High River.

my post is in relation to firearms owners. Tough situation as the link I posted suggested the city was in shambles from flood damage the RC's became the scape goat . Imo.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Scar270

Care to back up your definition of secure with a definition from the firearms act or another piece of legislation that defines that as secure?

Until you define that you can't determine if any "secure" guns were taken, as you will just change your definition.

I feel a trigger locked gun in a closet in a locked house is secure, but obviously you do not, and I can't find a legal definition, so ball is in your court, back up your opinion of secure with legal definition in a related piece of legislation or case law.

See that the great thing about secure its not a legal definition it takes plasma or air arc to disprove . The RC's weren't draging around a genny and a compressor cutting open secure
Containers to acces firearms . That was easy ..wheres the button for that.

[elkhunter11]

Tough situation as the link I posted suggested the city was in shambles from flood damage the RC's became the scape goat . Imo.

The RCMP were not a scapegoat in this case, because it was their very own actions that put them in the situation that they are now in. That doesn't at all match the definition of a scapegoat.

[benamen]

To me it now seems like High River was a testing site for this new policy. Go in, do the deed and see what needs to be tweaked before being policy.

[Scar270]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

See that the great thing about secure its not a legal definition it takes plasma or air arc to disprove . The RC's weren't draging around a genny and a compressor cutting open secure
Containers to acces firearms . That was easy ..wheres the button for that.

So you don't care what the law was, or that many of these owners had the safes in the basement, and had to remove the firearms to a higher floor because of the flood.

Realistically you just are in favor of a police state. I would suspect you were one of the ones there booting in doors, but some very large directive seems to have come down the pike preventing any officer in canada from commenting, so obviously you are just a wannabe horseman, not the real thing.