Mounties to make gun grabs policy

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

*[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.

people who secure there firearms not store them . It was a flood. some % of the homes were breeched from flooding a some % of the fire arms were in plain sight some percentage of home owners asked for firearms to be retrived. Some % threatend the police at the cordon. So what we have left is is a small percent of disgruntaled flooded breeched firearms owners and some joe high river flood victims rightfully upset . But it was not some huge gov /redford /liberal gestapo gun grab because if it was the RC'S would have got every single firearm in high river secure or not.

[elkhunter11]

some percentage of home owners asked for firearms to be retrived

Where is your proof of that claim? Or is that just another of your many baseless statements that you can't back up?

[Scar270]

So their competence level is how you decide whether something is planned or not, wow, what deduction.

So I guess if I break into a bank and only get 10% of the money, a crime never really occured. Remind me not to hire you as my defense lawyer.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

people who secure there firearms not store them . It was a flood. some % of the homes were breeched from flooding a some % of the fire arms were in plain sight some percentage of home owners asked for firearms to be retrived. Some % threatend the police at the cordon. So what we have left is is a small percent of disgruntaled flooded breeched firearms owners and some joe high river flood victims rightfully upset . But it was not some huge gov /redford /liberal gestapo gun grab because if it was the RC'S would have got every single firearm in high river secure or not.

Where do you keep coming up with this word "secure"? The only mention is a secure locking device, therefore a gun on a bed with a trigger lock (a SECURE locking device) was perfectly legal.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Where is your proof of that claim? Or is that just another of your many baseless statements that you can't back up?

just like always http://blog.highrivercoalition.com/. Every time you suggest that it takes 1.1 seconds on google. Do you just watch the news that tells you what you want to hear . I remember this from a year ago . Gezze . Amatures. If had any comouter skills past my crap typing skills id embarrass most of you. Baseless once again .

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

Where do you keep coming up with this word "secure"? The only mention is a secure locking device, therefore a gun on a bed with a trigger lock (a SECURE locking device) was perfectly legal.

Because you dont get secure has nuthin to do with book, law, RC, bs. Its a state of being its secure becuse unless you bring high energy tools ITS STILL SECURE. see how that works .

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

just like always http://blog.highrivercoalition.com/. Every time you suggest that it takes 1.1 seconds on google. Do you just watch the news that tells you what you want to hear . I remember this from a year ago . Gezze . Amatures. If had any comouter skills past my crap typing skills id embarrass most of you. Baseless once again .

After reading the entire page that appeared at the link you provided, I could not see one instance where a single firearms owner specifically asked the RCMP to retrieve their firearms from their home for them, as you claimed in a previous post.

Because you dont get secure has nuthin to do with book, law, RC, bs.

Well at least you mentioned both secure and bs in the same sentence, which is fitting, since your secure nonsense is total bs.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Because you dont get secure has nuthin to do with book, law, RC, bs. Its a state of being its secure becuse unless you bring high energy tools ITS STILL SECURE. see how that works .

So, if I follow the law, I'm wrong, because if you bring tools to breach my front door that means I'm not following the law? I don't see how that works. If I follow the law how it's written, then some how I'm still wrong? See how that works. If I lock my guns in a safe and you use C4 to blow it apart, does that mean I didn't meet safe storage? Again, no such thing in Canadian law as "secure" storage


You're trying to make up laws that don't exist

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Scar270

So their competence level is how you decide whether something is planned or not, wow, what deduction.

So I guess if I break into a bank and only get 10% of the money, a crime never really occured. Remind me not to hire you as my defense lawyer.

what . No its a big conspiricy against gun owners remember . You dont understand the have the power like the military. You can whine and pis and moan all you want . What they say goes in these emergancy situation. If as suggested police and mmilitary swept the cordoned area of town. Unsecure firearms were encountered. These firearms were secured.this covers 90%+ of the fire arms secured in the flood affected cordon. The military poster here suggested the put some firearms out of sight . Then relayed this info to police presto explained to the 99%. Awe heck now what. What it really shows is most of the folks on the other side of this subject have never experienced high stress emergancy eveac recovery situations. Life limb safety. " Sir no threat to life in dwelling . Copy .Sir no injuries or evacuees in dwelling. Copy . Sir I have unsecured firearms in dwelling . Copy , wait out. Transport in bound secure firearms to transport . Copy. yes sir copy secure firearms to transport. Thats it folks no ifs no conspiracy no big gov / Rc aagenda. So simple if you've been in similar areas.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

So, if I follow the law, I'm wrong, because if you bring tools to breach my front door that means I'm not following the law? I don't see how that works. If I follow the law how it's written, then some how I'm still wrong? See how that works. If I lock my guns in a safe and you use C4 to blow it apart, does that mean I didn't meet safe storage? Again, no such thing in Canadian law as "secure" storage


You're trying to make up laws that don't exist

Its not a law . Its reality ,the fire arms in high river stored in big heavy steel boxes that were bolted internaly to the floor were untouched by Rc , what part of that are you missing . Legal stored safe fire arms were then secured by the RC'at another location approx 1000 In number. One is safe and perfectly legal under normal day to day circumstances. The high river flood was not normal, was it.
One is3" thick steel with vadinum pins and does not give two monkeys what is normal ,legal or what the RC'S think . Because secure is not an interpretation. Its a state of being.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

what . No its a big conspiricy against gun owners remember . You dont understand the have the power like the military. You can whine and pis and moan all you want . What they say goes in these emergancy situation. If as suggested police and mmilitary swept the cordoned area of town. Unsecure firearms were encountered. These firearms were secured.this covers 90%+ of the fire arms secured in the flood affected cordon. The military poster here suggested the put some firearms out of sight . Then relayed this info to police presto explained to the 99%. Awe heck now what. What it really shows is most of the folks on the other side of this subject have never experienced high stress emergancy eveac recovery situations. Life limb safety. " Sir no threat to life in dwelling . Copy .Sir no injuries or evacuees in dwelling. Copy . Sir I have unsecured firearms in dwelling . Copy , wait out. Transport in bound secure firearms to transport . Copy. yes sir copy secure firearms to transport. Thats it folks no ifs no conspiracy no big gov / Rc aagenda. So simple if you've been in similar areas.

So can you in any way provide credible data to back up the numbers that you are throwing around? You know, the 90%, and the 99%? Of course you can't, because you made them up. just like pretty much every supposed statistic that you post, on any topic. Between your made up statistics, your unproven claims, your ridiculous comparisons, and your horrible spelling and sentence structure, how could you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Its not a law . Its reality ,the fire arms in high river stored in big heavy steel boxes that were bolted internaly to the floor were untouched by Rc , what part of that are you missing . Legal stored safe fire arms were then secured by the RC'at another location approx 1000 In number. One is safe and perfectly legal under normal day to day circumstances. The high river flood was not normal, was it.
One is3" thick steel with vadinum pins and does not give two monkeys what is normal ,legal or what the RC'S think . Because secure is not an interpretation. Its a state of being.

So reality is, following the law means nothing if the rcmp come in to your house? There is no clause in the firearms act for natural disasters, what part of that are you missing.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So can you in any way provide credible data to back up the numbers that you are throwing around? You know, the 90%, and the 99%? Of course you can't, because you made them up. just like pretty much every supposed statistic that you post, on any topic. Between your made up statistics, your unproven claims, your ridiculous comparisons, and your horrible spelling and sentence structure, how could you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

You know this is the the internet right. This is opinion based conversation. This is not english 40.oh and bring up some stats that make mine wrong its that simple ... but mostly you cant . Becuse ive been in these situations on an occasion. After thst its just good old probability. In you own mind what would you do , in the home owners place, in the soldiers boots . In the Rc's shoes. Honestly, in a flooded city. You would just Iignore firearms on a kitchen table thou every bit of your traing suggests secure all fire arms?? Home owner grabs the five or six rifles /shot guns out of the nonwater proof safe in the basement /garage. Throws them on the bed ?? Soldier puts them out of sight passes on the info . It human to act in a prescribed manner in stressful dangerous situations. I know the on the grownd head RC made the call. Dont care he had a job to do ..it got done well . Crappy deal for the folks front doors. They got new ones, most need new ones after being under 2'-7' of water. If a single legal fire arm was kept by the police the media frenzy would be off the chart ..but that did not happen 99% of all firearms were returned. I belive iirc one or so were not llegally owned and were detained.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

So reality is, following the law means nothing if the rcmp come in to your house? There is no clause in the firearms act for natural disasters, what part of that are you missing.

the rc werent knoking and asking to come in . The floated up to the top stair in some cases and waded around the ground floor. Its a special curcumstance out side of the relm of normal . Your making up situations. c4 lol . Were discussing what actually happened in high river. Many homes there was no front door. Many homes the front door was the last thing worth worring abought. in reality when 3'-7 of flood waters cover a town the EMERGANCY services do what is required to get the job done . An unexpected situation arose unsecure firearms. A commander on the ground made a call . Thats the nuts and the bolts.

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

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.

I only suggested taking other measures for protection for anyone paranoid enough to think that the RCMP want to go out of their way to gather guns. And also because it states so clearly how to avoid being charged. If you like to keep a loaded shotgun in your home while you go shopping (illegally), leaving it under the mattress would probably clear the "in plain view" requirement and you may continue breaking the law and have a decent defence for when the horshoe bogie men spring into your home under an elected officials direction.

You have all the right in the world to complain about it. My issue is about your completely misleading thread. The policy is pretty straight forward vanilla pudding.

Again nothing gave them the right to steal secured firearms or legally owned property. NOTHING in the policy allows it either. But it does clarify that if you, your mayor, your MLA ask the RCMP or fire dept to secure homes and they see something illegal that it is open to a charge. (Maybe a great question to pose a political candidate, when if ever would u sanction entering people's homes without permission, if they say anything but " never" then they can look for a vote elsewhere)

If your house is on fire they don't wait to get a hold of you before going inside. Even though an Uzi on the kitchen table is irrelevant to a flood or fire it is policy to charge you and confiscate it.

If you think this is unacceptable there are many libertarians and people that have illegal paraphernalia in their home that will agree with you.

I'm standing up for people that want to discuss how misleading and full of grandstanding faux crisis this article is. Net neutrality and moths are more frightening.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

what . No its a big conspiricy against gun owners remember . You dont understand the have the power like the military. You can whine and pis and moan all you want . What they say goes in these emergancy situation. If as suggested police and mmilitary swept the cordoned area of town. Unsecure firearms were encountered. These firearms were secured.this covers 90%+ of the fire arms secured in the flood affected cordon. The military poster here suggested the put some firearms out of sight . Then relayed this info to police presto explained to the 99%. Awe heck now what. What it really shows is most of the folks on the other side of this subject have never experienced high stress emergancy eveac recovery situations. Life limb safety. " Sir no threat to life in dwelling . Copy .Sir no injuries or evacuees in dwelling. Copy . Sir I have unsecured firearms in dwelling . Copy , wait out. Transport in bound secure firearms to transport . Copy. yes sir copy secure firearms to transport. Thats it folks no ifs no conspiracy no big gov / Rc aagenda. So simple if you've been in similar areas.

You dont understand the have the power like the military

^^^ What the heck does that even mean?? You would think a loyalist would at least have access to a dictionary!

Maybe I'm just waaay too "high speed, low drag" but I have difficulty discerning how that was a "high stress emergancy (sic) eveac (sic) recovery situations (sic)" Of the many, many day to day jobs of para military organizations, this ranks up there with elementary school field trip.

You could have 50 lbs. of crack on the bed (and maybe you do), but that still does not give the RCs free reign to break, enter, search and steal.

In legal circles, this is called "illegal entry", and "unlawful search and seizure".
Those are our own dang Canadian laws! Bunch of Pinkos!

Fact of the matter is, guns were searched for, as not all the homes were broken into (or maybe they were just real lucky!), and private property was taken. In the hopes that it would not be collected back, I suppose.

Then the excuses came, and words like "valuables" and "unsecured" started to get thrown around.

If there was a concern, about stuff in plain sight, they would not have had to break down doors (which kind of had the opposite effect of security), and actively look for stuff. And if protecting valuables was a concern, they would have taken jewelry, electronics, and other chatel for "safekeeping".

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

You know this is the the internet right. This is opinion based conversation. This is not english 40.oh and bring up some stats that make mine wrong its that simple ... but mostly you cant . Becuse ive been in these situations on an occasion. After thst its just good old probability. In you own mind what would you do , in the home owners place, in the soldiers boots . In the Rc's shoes. Honestly, in a flooded city. You would just Iignore firearms on a kitchen table thou every bit of your traing suggests secure all fire arms?? Home owner grabs the five or six rifles /shot guns out of the nonwater proof safe in the basement /garage. Throws them on the bed ?? Soldier puts them out of sight passes on the info . It human to act in a prescribed manner in stressful dangerous situations. I know the on the grownd head RC made the call. Dont care he had a job to do ..it got done well . Crappy deal for the folks front doors. They got new ones, most need new ones after being under 2'-7' of water. If a single legal fire arm was kept by the police the media frenzy would be off the chart ..but that did not happen 99% of all firearms were returned. I belive iirc one or so were not llegally owned and were detained.

I am not the one throwing out numbers, and making up stats, you are, so you are the one that should be providing actual data to back up your claims. And you are correct, this is the internet, where anyone can make up whatever story they please, and they can throw out any numbers they please, in an attempt to pass them off as actual facts. Fortunately ,most people are smart enough to read posts with grade two or three level spelling, and grammar, and endless unproven claims, and soon realize that they are nothing more than fiction, dreamed up by someone looking for attention, but unfortunately, a few more trusting people, are a little slower to recognize this type of nonsense, when they see it. Some people will simply employ the ignore function, to avoid this nonsense, but others will continue reading it, for entertainment, just as people used to read dime store novels, realizing that most of the content was not true, but in in a way, it was entertaining, sort of like watching the three stooges on television.

[marxman]

dont argue with fishgunner. he is simply an unleashed ego. he is clogging up the forum

[super7mag]

Originally Posted by marxman

dont argue with fishgunner. he is simply an unleashed ego. he is clogging up the forum

Exactly , he conviently leaves out the fact that the town was under lock down and in care and control of the RCMP. Those scarey trigger locked guns laying on the bed were such an extreme threat a week after high water , they may have just jumped up and randomly started to fire on there own...
He also forgets the only looters in town were guys with a badge and an attitude.
But water proof ( laughable) safes should be a must then there would be no trouble they would just kick in your door and make sure your waterproof( haha) safe was still unbreached...
They were WRONG , man up and admit instead of using back door policy's to justify it , what a joke..

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Where is your proof of that claim? Or is that just another of your many baseless statements that you can't back up?

For what it's worth, and I'm not going to get involved in this fight, I personally know of one person who phoned the RCMP to come get his guns. He was out of town and they were valuable collector guns that he was no longer able to store securely in his basement and had been moved up stairs.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

For what it's worth, and I'm not going to get involved in this fight, I personally know of one person who phoned the RCMP to come get his guns. He was out of town and they were valuable collector guns that he was no longer able to store securely in his basement and had been moved up stairs.

Fishgunner has provided zero proof to back up his claim. Out of 15,000 people, you claim to know of one person that asked for the RCMP to retrieve their firearms, but once again, no actual proof has been posted. I am not doubting you, but rather I am pointing out that no proof of this has been posted.I do know that if I had valuable collector firearms, I would rather leave them unsecured in a locked house, surrounded by the RCMP than have them beat up by the RCMP as they tossed them in a boat, and then vehicles, and then to their receiving area.

[sask]

Originally Posted by marxman

dont argue with fishgunner. he is simply an unleashed ego. he is clogging up the forum

Ignore function comes in handy here......now if you guys would quit quoting him

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by sask

Ignore function comes in handy here......now if you guys would quit quoting him

X2

[silverdoctor]

All I can do is shake my head in disappointment at some of the postings here, same old go round.

At what point do RCMP policies become law? They are creating a policy to allow officers to seize (oops, secure) firearms that are in plain sight - but plain sight could be a closet or panty drawer. Wow. Policy will dictate that if they are in a home legally, they can search for firearms and if they find one - that's plain sight.

Slave lake Alberta... Yes, I realize the LGR was still alive during the fire.

“We are not just entering houses arbitrarily, but we do have a duty to ensure the safety of the area,” said Tim Taniguchi with Slave Lake RCMP. “We’re also assisting fire services with entering homes that pose a fire risk.”

So... Were people OK with the police using the LGR data to locate guns, enter homes and seize private property during the fire?


High River Alberta...

From NFA:

President Clare continued, "To date the NFA has identified three instances where long-gun registry data was used or suspected of being used by police after Parliament passed this law ordering that long-gun information be destroyed: the Ottawa area in June of 2012, High River, Alberta in June of 2013, and Fredericton, New Brunswick in June of 2013. The only case we are at liberty to make public at this time is the incident in High River that we reported on December 17, 2013." https://nfa.ca/news/nfa-fifth-letter...s-commissioner

Do people still believe that police no longer have the data from the LGR? While yes, the data is old, how many have actually gotten rid of all their guns since the LGR was destroyed?

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

All I can do is shake my head in disappointment at some of the postings here, same old go round.

At what point do RCMP policies become law? They are creating a policy to allow officers to seize (oops, secure) firearms that are in plain sight - but plain sight could be a closet or panty drawer. Wow. Policy will dictate that if they are in a home legally, they can search for firearms and if they find one - that's plain sight.

Slave lake Alberta... Yes, I realize the LGR was still alive during the fire.



So... Were people OK with the police using the LGR data to locate guns, enter homes and seize private property during the fire?


High River Alberta...

From NFA:




Do people still believe that police no longer have the data from the LGR? While yes, the data is old, how many have actually gotten rid of all their guns since the LGR was destroyed?

Don't forget that part of c-19 requires the destruction of the LGR records. Why do we allow the RCMP to ignore direct orders we have given them? These guys think they are above the law and we let them get away with.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...&Parl=41&Ses=1
Clause 29 of Bill C-19 requires the Commissioner of Firearms to ensure the destruction, as soon as feasible, of all records in the registry related to the registration of non-restricted firearms, and all copies of those records under the Commissioner’s control. As well, all chief firearms officers must ensure the destruction, as soon as feasible, of all such records and copies under their control. Clause 29 specifies that sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives Act and sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of these records.

[Vigilante]

It is blatantly obvious to me that Fish gunner has no clue about what went on around here last year. I assure you, no RCMP members were looking around in 3ft deep water for guns, they were only looking on the dry levels, and they were only looking after the water had receded, and anyone that had been trapped, would have already been deceased. Sure there was still 6ft of water in my basement when they broke into my house, but they didnt look through my basement. They looked only on the upper levels.

I am not going to get into this whole stupid argument, but I will say this: Insurance has paid me for a majority of my losses, my basement can be re built, my items can be replaced. What cannot be fixed is my faith that the RCMP are here to help me be safe. I do still believe that there are good people within the RCMP that want to help people, but the organization as a whole has a separate agenda.

[mich]

Originally Posted by Vigilante

It is blatantly obvious to me that Fish gunner has no clue about what went on around here last year. I assure you, no RCMP members were looking around in 3ft deep water for guns, they were only looking on the dry levels, and they were only looking after the water had receded, and anyone that had been trapped, would have already been deceased. Sure there was still 6ft of water in my basement when they broke into my house, but they didnt look through my basement. They looked only on the upper levels.

I am not going to get into this whole stupid argument, but I will say this: Insurance has paid me for a majority of my losses, my basement can be re built, my items can be replaced. What cannot be fixed is my faith that the RCMP are here to help me be safe. I do still believe that there are good people within the RCMP that want to help people, but the organization as a whole has a separate agenda.

Well said, but you are wrong on one point.... they did wade into basements to "find" unsecured guns. We did see this in 4 or 5 homes.

[Kanonfodder]

There is some obvious trolling and a ton of questionable posts, keep it respectful please we are monitoring this thread closely

[coastalhunter]

So is there a 'law' or 'policy' that prohibits one from bringing your firearms with you?

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by coastalhunter

So is there a 'law' or 'policy' that prohibits one from bringing your firearms with you?

Restricted=yes
NR=no