Mounties to make gun grabs policy

[ctd]

Firearms were secured. That is what the RCMP do when they enter a house to which they see firearms in the open.

No solid proof that the LGR was used at all. Just some speculation based on some notes or radio recording stating "the list" or words to that effect which could have been made earlier by Officers or Military who originally entered the house.

Very few firearms were not returned to the owners. If they were legal and the person had the proper licence they were returned.

No one ask the RCMP to secure their Firearms, which a few did. Put in for freedom of information act and request the info and you may see that there were a few requests.
People also didn't ask them to rescue themselves from the roof top, or the river as the RCMP Officers put themselves in jeapordy as they entered the water to save a few lives.

I also guess that the people who threatened to storm the Barricade with force wasn't asked for also. Yet the Police maintained their composure and did not over react That was on the news channel.

The end of the day the whole High River flood was a complete disaster in regards to response and implementation of emergency plans.

Hopefully we don't forget the issues that came forward during the High River Flood. One of the biggest issues is who is in control and who makes the initial decision to ask for help under the Emergency Measures act.

As we seen in Manitoba recently the system works and works well if you have a plan and everyone involved is notified properly.

One thing that bothers me over the whole High River case is why is it only a big deal there. Why have Police not secured Firearms elsewhere in the province during the flood. Or else where such as Manitoba's floods? Or did they and we just don't hear of it.

[wwbirds]

they were unavoidably detained for two weeks looking for a small boy and his grandparents. then those dang rural breakins and thefts got in the way of finalizing the gun conspiracy. Might be delayed again due to fatal accidents and taking drunks off the road so you and your family are safe. dont worry as soon as they have a bit of spare time I sure they will get right on it.

Geesh I know as many LEO hunters as not and this theory of the grand conspiracy is getting ridiculous. OK maybe someone made a bad decision in High river move on get over it. Probably wont happen again and they are implementing policy to be consistent in all situations. they are not passing gun seizure laws!
Most LEO err on the side of public safety so maybe someone made a bad call. I remember firing a lady for insubordination when I was 27. think on it now and should have given her another chance. had I investigated a missing child and found out that the suspect had murdered him I think I might be tempted to make another bad/rash decision. Not sure how I could cope with that job I grew quite jaded with the general public just from seeing the fraud side of criminal investigations not sure how they cope day to day with the POS that they have to deal with daily. I would need a team of shrinks just to function in that position this week.
Then come on a hunting forum to relax and have to read all the arm chair theories and couch and TV cop wannabees.
Respect works both ways and is often noticeably absent here.

[silverdoctor]

CTD, the RCMP's own words were "seized", only changed after people got upset.


People may want to have a read, this will be the new policy in the near future.

https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/R...025%202014.pdf

[elkhunter11]

OK maybe someone made a bad decision in High river move on get over it. Probably wont happen again

The "bad decision" as you call it, infringed severely on the rights of many citizens, it's far too serious, to just be forgotten. Someone does need to be held accountable. As for " probably won't happen again" that just isn't good enough. In fact, if nobody is held accountable, I see them trying the same nonsense again in the future, because they know that they can get away with it.

[Ken07AOVette]

Are you guys going to keep beating the stuffing out of this dead horse? There hasn't been anything new on this subject for a year.

Around and around we go


And around


And around


and around


And around

[220swifty]

Why do you suppose there has been nothing new in a year, Ken ? There is supposed to be a formal inquiry , which was supposed to be done already, but the completion date has been pushed back a few times now. Perhaps they are hoping we get tired of beating the horse and go away?

I haven't commented much on the subject lately, but I am no less ****ed off about it than I was a year ago.

[elkhunter11]

There hasn't been anything new on this subject for a year.

The inquiry was supposed to be concluded by the end of last year. It appears that the government is hoping that if they delay things long enough, people will forget about the entire incident, and they can just forget about it themselves. Some of us just don't want to make it that easy for them.

[IR_mike]

It was a test, a toe in the water so to speak to see what they could get away with.

[hillbillyreefer]

We should not forget, and sure as heck shouldn't allow it to happen again.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by coastalhunter

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

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Restricted=yes
NR=no

Not exactly. The law defines a legal place of storage as your dwelling. The wording is a little ambiguous, but this can mean any temporary residence.

If I was evacuated, you can bet that I would be bringing my restricted guns in accordance with the laws. You need a LATT, and the guns to stay in your dwelling place where ever that is.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

It was a test, a toe in the water so to speak to see what they could get away with.

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

We should not forget, and sure as heck shouldn't allow it to happen again.

For sure!

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Not exactly. The law defines a legal place of storage as your dwelling. The wording is a little ambiguous, but this can mean any temporary residence.

If I was evacuated, you can bet that I would be bringing my restricted guns in accordance with the laws. You need a LATT, and the guns to stay in your dwelling place where ever that is.

Lol.

"We are experiencing heavier than normal call volume please stay on the line your estimated time is 55 minutes"
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.
.
.
.
.
hello
I'd like an LTATT so I can bug out of my flood zone.
I'm sorry sir our policy does not cover that as a valid reason for transport.
Is there anything else I can deny you today?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Lol.

"We are experiencing heavier than normal call volume please stay on the line your estimated time is 55 minutes"
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.
.
.
.
.
hello
I'd like an LTATT so I can bug out of my flood zone.
I'm sorry sir our policy does not cover that as a valid reason for transport.
Is there anything else I can deny you today?

Ha, ha!

Funny, but not entirely accurate. What you are thinking of is a Short Term Authorization to Transport.

What I am talking about is your current (hope you keep it current) Long Term Authorization. Which covers you to go to matches, gunsmiths, ranges and your "dwellings".

[hillbillyreefer]

May work in Alberta, but I doubt it would in Ontario or Quebec. They have a hard enough time getting to a range out there.

I've never seen other dwellings listed on one, just your primary place of residence. I've heard of guys being denied having two dwellings listed, but it is possible I suppose. I'm sure there is no law against it, just more RCMP "policy".

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

May work in Alberta, but I doubt it would in Ontario or Quebec. They have a hard enough time getting to a range out there.

I've never seen other dwellings listed on one, just your primary place of residence. I've heard of guys being denied having two dwellings listed, but it is possible I suppose. I'm sure there is no law against it, just more RCMP "policy".

I found reference to it, in some NFA reading. And again, online. Could not find anything on a couple of the law websites.

It would be pretty hard to take part in a competition out of town without it.

As its Federal law, it should be pretty universal. But of course they mess with them a lot (maybe a little) more out there.

The argument could be made, that in an emergency the guns would not be in a secure location being left your normally secure house.

The law is supposed to rule in such cases in favour of attempting to do the right thing. Supposed to, anyway...

[silverdoctor]

Well, in case people don't feel like reading, gun grabbing will be the norm during any disasters or evac so you better get used to it from the sounds of it. It also seems that everything that the RCMP did in High River will be deemed legal, if you're expecting accountability, forget it.

From https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/R...025%202014.pdf

If the RCMP have to go door to door searching, anything in plain view (or searched for) is fair game and fully legal. It happened in High River, it happened in Slave Lake. It's going to happen again.

Some interesting points...

1.5.2.6 authorize the entry into any building or land by ANY person in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program: authorize the entry into any building or on any land, without warrant, by any person in in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program;



4.6.1.5 Plainview Doctrine. You may seize any item in plain view that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence if:
4.6.1.5.1 there is a pre-existig lawful reason for intrusion upon the person or premises.
4.6.1.5.2 the discovery of the item is inadvertant, and
4.6.1.5.3 the item is immediately apparent as incriminating evidence
4.6.1.6 If it is determined by the member that an item, in the public interest, must be secured for safekeeping, member will document.

Interestingly... From http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/co...iew%20Doctrine - POLICE POWERS AND DRUG-RELATED OFFENCES

8. Plain View Doctrine

A search warrant only allows a police officer to search the areas and for objects set out in it. The plain view doctrine, however, allows a police officer who is lawfully at a locale to seize items that constitute evidence of a crime. "This is what is really meant by the ‘plain view doctrine’; it must be an item which is in the plain view of the officer and something which he has observed during the course of a proper search."() The doctrine depends on the officer being lawfully at the locale. The Code and the CDSA have codified the plain view doctrine with respect to searches under the respective legislation. This doctrine is another example of a warrantless search authorized by law.

4.6.1.1 If damage is caused to premises being searched, under no circumstance will members make any commitment, either directly or indirectly, that the RCMP will make restitution.

5.1 Do not compel or arrest an adult person for failing to leave their private property when they are subject to an evacuation order.
5.2.1 leave the area specified in the evac orderk, he or she will not be permitted to return to his or her property (guess this is how they get away with spike strips)
5.2.2 basically if your life is imperiled, you're on your own.
5.3.1 When a person is suffering from a mental illness, you can arrest and remove. (At what point do RCMP feel they are trained to see if someone is mentally disabled?)
5.3.2 Basically they can take your kids and put them in the care.

[1quietbear*]

When did we elect the RCMP to create laws in this country? We didn't! We elected politicians to represent us! To make laws. So get off your butts and call, email or write a letter to every politician you can. We as Albertans and as Canadians need to stand up and be heard before this private government army drags us into a police state. We should have provincial and municipal policing that is in place to protect and represent us as citizens, not a group of paramilitary bullies intent on dictating and trampling our rights and freedoms.

P.S. here's food for thought. On any given day, the RCMP can most likely mobilize more combat ready personnel(ERT) than the canadian military. And they are under the control of a private, unelected, government appointed leader. Who do you think he takes his orders from and where do his loyalties lay. I doubt they lay with us. Read your charter of rights and freedoms! It's not just about gun ownership. That's just the card they show to keep they sheep scared and quiet. It's time to strip this private army of its massive budget and reinvest it in our actual military and local police forces. Who I'm sure would be glad to serve us without kicking in our doors and stealing our personal property

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by 1quietbear*

When did we elect the RCMP to create laws in this country? We didn't! We elected politicians to represent us! To make laws. So get off your butts and call, email or write a letter to every politician you can. We as Albertans and as Canadians need to stand up and be heard before this private government army drags us into a police state. We should have provincial and municipal policing that is in place to protect and represent us as citizens, not a group of paramilitary bullies intent on dictating and trampling our rights and freedoms.

They aren't making laws, they seem to be cherry picking here and there from existing laws. Now if they make it a policy to take guns in their definition of "in plain sight" in a state of emergency, it's legal.


Accountability? It'll be out the window from the looks of it.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT (Alberta Queen's printer)
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf

Part 3
Liability Protection for Emergency Service Providers

Minister
27
No action lies against the Minister or a person acting under the Minister’s direction or authorization for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under this Act or the regulations.
2010 c5 s11

Local authority
28
No action lies against a local authority or a person acting under the local authority’s direction or authorization for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under this Act or the regulations during a state of local emergency.
2010 c5 s11

Search and rescue organization
29
No action in negligence lies against a search and rescue organization, the directors of that organization or a person acting under the direction or authorization of that organization for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while acting under an agreement between that organization and the Minister.
2010 c5 s11

Still, questions remain unanswered.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by 1quietbear*

When did we elect the RCMP to create laws in this country? We didn't! We elected politicians to represent us! To make laws. So get off your butts and call, email or write a letter to every politician you can. We as Albertans and as Canadians need to stand up and be heard before this private government army drags us into a police state. We should have provincial and municipal policing that is in place to protect and represent us as citizens, not a group of paramilitary bullies intent on dictating and trampling our rights and freedoms.

P.S. here's food for thought. On any given day, the RCMP can most likely mobilize more combat ready personnel(ERT) than the canadian military. And they are under the control of a private, unelected, government appointed leader. Who do you think he takes his orders from and where do his loyalties lay. I doubt they lay with us. Read your charter of rights and freedoms! It's not just about gun ownership. That's just the card they show to keep they sheep scared and quiet. It's time to strip this private army of its massive budget and reinvest it in our actual military and local police forces. Who I'm sure would be glad to serve us without kicking in our doors and stealing our personal property

28, 000 total employees for the Rc's .60,000 serving soldiers. so given the fact that a tiny portion of the RC'sare combat perped and a huge portion of the forces are combat preped. you are out by a little.

[mally]

Dangerous policy to have in place