Pmo offices tells RCMP to return seized firearms ASAP.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't see anything in that act where it gives the police the power to seize personal property, unless that personal property is required to be used to deal with the emergency.

Exactly.

Acts tell us what can be done but they also tell us what cannot be done... often by omission.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

The only state of emergency that ever existed was to do with the evacuation & safety of innocent flood victims. The state of emergency such as violence, political unrest and threat to security never existed. Therefore, illegal and unwarranted removal of firearms from law abiding and innocent victims is nothing less than a serious breach of a free society's rights. Had the removalvof firearms been warranted, it would have to he supported by possible violent outcome, such was never the case.

That is the time when the right for the people to retain their firearms should be most vigilantly protected...

The motivation behind the 2nd amendment in the US comes to mind...

[gitrdun]

y

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

That is the time when the right for the people to retain their firearms should be most vigilantly protected...

The motivation behind the 2nd amendment in the US comes to mind...

Yes Jordan, but it is way deeper than that. And hopefully, even those people who themselves are NOT FIREARM owners see this as a progression of things to come. The thing is that "us" firearm owners are first and foremost to fight for our rights as law abiding citizens. I see this as a good opportunity to win over even those who do not own firearms to be awakened to the fact that their rights to freedom can be jeopardized by a gestapo type ruling. This High River fiasco could work towards educating some that are on the fence, don't you think?

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Keep in mind that this is exactly what the government wants. If the government didn't want to cops to become so detached and brutal, it would change it.

I have two employees, if they don't do the work as I wish, I retrain them or replace them. Same thing with the RCMP. If government didn't like what they are doing, they would change it ...period.

So why did the PMO say they wanted the guns returned as soon as possible. I don't think the Government had anything to do with the confiscation of the firearms, but was instead a decision by the local RCMP. If the government was interested in confiscation, then the Calgary police and other towns affected by the floods would also have had their homes broken into and firearms confiscated.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't see anything in that act where it gives the police the power to seize personal property, unless that personal property is required to be used to deal with the emergency.

X2. The intention of the act is to ensure public safety. Seizing property is not protecting the public.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

So why did the PMO say they wanted the guns returned as soon as possible. I don't think the Government had anything to do with the confiscation of the firearms, but was instead a decision by the local RCMP. If the government was interested in confiscation, then the Calgary police and other towns affected by the floods would also have had their homes broken into and firearms confiscated.

The government calling the shots in AB is the provincial govt. The RCMP may very well have been directed by the province? The fed govt isn't calling any shots, except that when notified of this, they suggested a quick return of the firearms. Ask your MLA: Who in government made the order to break into houses and seize firearms.

[brendan's dad]

Under the emergency measures act the Police can enter a residence without a warrant to search for victim and/or person not complying with the evacuation order. If force is use to break the front door down in order to gain entry this is permit; same as the FD in an emergency. Now once that front door is no longer able to be locked then the firearm in closet and on beds, trigger locked or not, would not be store properly since it can easily be removed from the residence. It's the old rule of 2. Your front is lock number 1 and a trigger lock/gun case/ vault is lock number 2. So once the front doors were breached the guns were no longer properly stored, maybe the situation cause the need for the seized.

Just a thought

[leeaspell]

Front door broke or not, if it was trigger locked it was safely stored. You dont need 2 forms of lock. I never heard a law about it being easy to take from residence. So if my front door is open on a summer day, all of a sudden my guns are not legally stored anymore?

[elkhunter11]

Under the emergency measures act the Police can enter a residence without a warrant to search for victim and/or person not complying with the evacuation order. If force is use to break the front door down in order to gain entry this is permit; same as the FD in an emergency. Now once that front door is no longer able to be locked then the firearm in closet and on beds, trigger locked or not, would not be store properly since it can easily be removed from the residence. It's the old rule of 2. Your front is lock number 1 and a trigger lock/gun case/ vault is lock number 2. So once the front doors were breached the guns were no longer properly stored, maybe the situation cause the need for the seized.

Just a thought

Apparently you haven't read the safe storage of firearms regulations for non restricted firearms.

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) Paragraphs (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.

Now could you kindly point out this rule of 2 that you speak of, as I don't see it in the legislation. I do see an OR in bold print, but I don't see any reference to any rule of 2. The regulations are different for restricted firearms, but most of the firearms taken were non restricted firearms.

Now let us look at another situation that occurred during this event. One individual reported that his firearms were not only trigger locked, but they were also cable locked in place, so that they could not be removed. So even after the front door was broken, there were still two different safe storage methods in place, even though only one or the other is required according to the regulations. However, that certainly didn't stop the RCMP from cutting the cables, and taking the firearms anyways.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Apparently you haven't read the safe storage of firearms regulations for non restricted firearms.



Now could you kindly point out this rule of 2 that you speak of, as I don't see it in the legislation. I do see an OR in bold print, but I don't see any reference to any rule of 2. The regulations are different for restricted firearms, but most of the firearms taken were non restricted firearms.

Now let us look at another situation that occurred during this event. One individual reported that his firearms were not only trigger locked, but they were also cable locked in place, so that they could not be removed. So even after the front door was broken, there were still two different safe storage methods in place, even though only one or the other is required according to the regulations. However, that certainly didn't stop the RCMP from cutting the cables, and taking the firearms anyways.

Yes I have read the act and the section you refer covers the storage of a unrestricted firearm in a residence, business, or building which has the ABILITY to be secure. If you take your hunting rifle, throw a trigger lock on it, and decide you want to store it in your gazebo you are not complying with the act. If you do not lock your front door that your business but the act covers again buildings that have The ability to be locked. This is why there are different rules for storage in an unattended vehicles. If all you read is the short version act and no synopsis's or case law then you have a very narrow understanding of the law.

[elkhunter11]

Yes I have read the act and the section you refer covers the storage of a unrestricted firearm in a residence, business, or building which has the ABILITY to be secure. If you take your hunting rifle, throw a trigger lock on it, and decide you want to store it in your gazebo you are not complying with the act. If you do not lock your front door that your business but the act covers again buildings that have The ability to be locked. This is why there are different rules for storage in an unattended vehicles. If all you read is the short version act and no synopsis's or case law then you have a very narrow understanding of the law.

I still see no reference to any rule of two in the act, but I do notice that you declined to comment on the situation where cables were cut to take the firearms. Even with no lock on the door, there are still two safe storage methods being used.

Now if your rule of two does in fact apply, in any case where the RCMP broke into the house, leaving it unsecured, but did not find all of the firearms in the residence, would the RCMP now be guilty of leaving those firearms in a condition of unsafe storage? After all, they intentionally broke the locks or doors, and they intentionally left the homes unsecured, which created the(according to you anyways) unsafe storage condition.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I still see no reference to any rule of two in the act, but I do notice that you declined to comment on the situation where cables were cut to take the firearms. Even with no lock on the door, there are still two safe storage methods being used.

Now if your rule of two does in fact apply, in any case where the RCMP broke into the house, leaving it unsecured, but did not find all of the firearms in the residence, would the RCMP now be guilty of leaving those firearms in a condition of unsafe storage? After all, they intentionally broke the locks or doors, and they left the homes unsecured, which created the(according to you anyways) unsafe storage condition.

I didn't respond because I have no knowledge of the circumstances that you are referring to in regards to cable locks. The majority of the post on here have referred to firearms taken to the upstairs and left on beds and in closets and i gave a possible scenario of what may have occurred. If the RCMP left firearms in plain view, not properly stored, then yes they would be criminally and civilly liable. If the firearms were hidden or locked in a room or safe then the RCMP would not have knowledge that they were there or improperly stored so they would not be liable if they did not know. As I understand no gun safe or locked rooms were entered to seize firearms.

And yes the RCMP caused the residences to be unsecured so they had deal with the firearms storage problem they created. They couldn't deliver the firearms to each resident during the emergency, so they they were seized as opposed to leaving them in an unsecured residence, I just fail to see the huge scandal. They recorded where the firearms came from so they can be return once the residents attend the Detachment. The suggestion that this was a planned gun enforcement action during a natural disaster is just a little far fetched, I think they had bigger fish to fry.

[elkhunter11]

I didn't respond because I have no knowledge of the circumstances that you are referring to in regards to cable locks.

From another thread on the forum.

"... We also are missing three rifles , one that was in ****'s closet and two that were locked in the gun rack in ****'s den. All three were secured with gun locks and secure lock cables. The cables were cut to remove them... "

If the RCMP left firearms in plain view, not properly stored, then yes they would be criminally and civilly liable. If the firearms were hidden or locked in a room or safe then the RCMP would not have knowledge that they were there or improperly stored so they would not be liable if they did not know.

So it's okay for the RCMP to break into homes that might contain firearms, and leave those homes unsecured, not knowing if there were any firearms in the house? Yet the RCMP felt compelled to cut the cables to take firearms that were being stored legally according to the regulations, even though one firearm was out of site in a closet?

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I didn't respond because I have no knowledge of the circumstances that you are referring to in regards to cable locks. The majority of the post on here have referred to firearms taken to the upstairs and left on beds and in closets and i gave a possible scenario of what may have occurred. If the RCMP left firearms in plain view, not properly stored, then yes they would be criminally and civilly liable. If the firearms were hidden or locked in a room or safe then the RCMP would not have knowledge that they were there or improperly stored so they would not be liable if they did not know. As I understand no gun safe or locked rooms were entered to seize firearms.

And yes the RCMP caused the residences to be unsecured so they had deal with the firearms storage problem they created. They couldn't deliver the firearms to each resident during the emergency, so they they were seized as opposed to leaving them in an unsecured residence, I just fail to see the huge scandal. They recorded where the firearms came from so they can be return once the residents attend the Detachment. The suggestion that this was a planned gun enforcement action during a natural disaster is just a little far fetched, I think they had bigger fish to fry.

No your comment is based on what has been in the public domain.
The rcmp in this scenario are there own worst enemy.
All comments are based on what we have seen on public media, so we all have the option to express views.

I believe they went beyond what I consider correct.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

From another thread on the forum.






So it's okay for the RCMP to break into homes that might contain firearms, and leave those homes unsecured, not knowing if there were any firearms in the house? Yet the RCMP felt compelled to cut the cables to take firearms that were being stored legally according to the regulations, even though one firearm was out of site in a closet?

Did the RCMP only enter the homes of firearms owners, I don't know, wasn't there. Or while they were searching each residence for victims and people refusing to evacuate they found firearms and because the residence was no longer secure the firearms were seized????. Again where is the scandal. Do you feel the right to enter a residence with any means necessary should be removed from the emergency measures act? In the face of losing all you own it is hard to make a rational decision concerning your personal safety... Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as people refuse to evacuate and place themselves in danger. This is why each residence is searched and then clearly mark indicating it is empty.

[rottie]

look for victims all they want,thats what they are paid for in natural disasters. But leave private property alone,they are not supposed to be babysitting property but looking for those in need of help.
The amount of time logging firearms,and recording where they came from is time that could be spent looking for casualties.

Theft is theft ,uniform or not

[MatthewP]

Okay now that this has shifted to Safe storage, I have a quick question, And sorry for the Hi-jack. If I am coming up to Duck hunt, and bringing two Guns, with required paperwork, Do I need to have trigger locks for my shotguns. Oe lock in a traveling gun case. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the hi-jack... Matt

[rottie]

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...posage-eng.htm

This link should help explain our laws,but basically if your firearm is in transport and you are in the vehicle no lock is required. Leave the vehicle and it should be

[elkhunter11]

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as people refuse to evacuate and place themselves in danger. This is why each residence is searched and then clearly mark indicating it is empty.

And after hearing about what the RCMP did at High River, how many more people do you think will refuse to evacuate during future disasters? Or how many people will delay their evacuation, until they can pack all of their firearms, to take with them?

And if you are concerned about the safety of anyone still in their homes, why would you not conduct a search immediately, rather than wait several days before starting?

Okay now that this has shifted to Safe storage, I have a quick question, And sorry for the Hi-jack. If I am coming up to Duck hunt, and bringing two Guns, with required paperwork, Do I need to have trigger locks for my shotguns. Oe lock in a traveling gun case. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the hi-jack... Matt

I don't even have trigger locks for my non restricted firearms, because a locked gun case satisfies the safe storage regulations. I don't even lock my gun cases, when my firearms are in my lockup.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Did the RCMP only enter the homes of firearms owners, I don't know, wasn't there. Or while they were searching each residence for victims and people refusing to evacuate they found firearms and because the residence was no longer secure the firearms were seized????. Again where is the scandal. Do you feel the right to enter a residence with any means necessary should be removed from the emergency measures act? In the face of losing all you own it is hard to make a rational decision concerning your personal safety... Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as people refuse to evacuate and place themselves in danger. This is why each residence is searched and then clearly mark indicating it is empty.

where is the scandal?very simple.the town is in lockdown. defending the cops taking of personal property instead of removing people in danger is the scandal.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by rottie

look for victims all they want,thats what they are paid for in natural disasters. But leave private property alone,they are not supposed to be babysitting property but looking for those in need of help.
The amount of time logging firearms,and recording where they came from is time that could be spent looking for casualties.

Theft is theft ,uniform or not

Yes theft is theft...but. Theft occurs when something is taken without color of right with no intention of returning it. So the question is was the seizure unlawful and will the items be returned. If they were seized under the fact that the residences were no longer able to be secured and steps were taken to facilitate the return of the firearms to the owners by recording serial #'s from each residence, where is the huge crime that warrants multiple threads and pages of b*******.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Yes theft is theft...but. Theft occurs when something is taken without color of right with no intention of returning it. So the question is was the seizure unlawful and will the items be returned. If they were seized under the fact that the residences were no longer able to be secured and steps were taken to facilitate the return of the firearms to the owners by recording serial #'s from each residence, where is the huge crime that warrants multiple threads and pages of b*******.

So by your definition....I could walk into a gun store and take a firearm and as long as I plan on returning it, it is not theft.

OR how about we extend it to....If a regular Joe does it then it is considered theft....but if a police officer does it, then it is considered safe keeping?

Learn something new everyday....

What if regular Joes were breaking into homes and "securing" firearms to be returned later....would they be admonished for a job well done?

LC

[rottie]

Its still private property,if securing propery of value was the issue why were other salvalable items not secured for the people ?
Logging serial numbers and addresses must have taken a fair bit of time,time that could have being spent on more pressing duties,like maybe looking for injured people,or maybe even pets.
The RCMP in this country are relying on a reputation built in years past, when they were a force all Canadians coulds be proud of ,they are now doing nothing to contribute to its reputation,but rather through acts like this tarnish it.

[Lefty-Canuck]

How many jewelry boxes were retrieved and catalogued for safe keeping against these rampant looters that could enter a town that was surrounded by police?

LC

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

So by your definition....I could walk into a gun store and take a firearm and as long as I plan on returning it, it is not theft.

OR how about we extend it to....If a regular Joe does it then it is considered theft....but if a police officer does it, then it is considered safe keeping?

Learn something new everyday....

What if regular Joes were breaking into homes and "securing" firearms to be returned later....would they be admonished for a job well done?

LC

yup.why didn't they break in to the local sporting goods store and take all the powder out of there?someone might get their hands on that and make a pipe bomb.

[elkhunter11]

If they were seized under the fact that the residences were no longer able to be secured

And some of those homes were no longer able to be secured, because the RCMP broke windows, but never even entered the home. The passage below was posted by a High River woman that stayed in her home.

Maureen Hefferton There was no locksmith with the police on Friday night when they broke my neighbor's window and then DIDN'T even go in. That was after I told them who they were and where they went. And they were going to break the front sidelight which would have been very expensive to replace. I said if you have to break a window at least make it a smaller one at the back. In addition they had big windows downstairs where you could clearly see into the walkout basement and it was obvious there was no damage and no one in there. So why did they have to break the window? They then used the valve wrench to turn off the gas on the OUTSIDE of the house. Lots of questionable tactics the last 2 days....

If they really cared at all about the people's property, including the firearms, they could have boarded over the windows that they broke, or screwed the broken doors in place, so the house would once again be secured, so the owners property would have some protection.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

How many jewelry boxes were retrieved and catalogued for safe keeping against these rampant looters that could enter a town that was surrounded by police?

LC

Kinda weak comparison as jewelry is not a regulated item with specific storage laws. Actually if the RCMP are claiming they seized the items because they did not want them destroyed or they were valuable then they wouldn't have grounds for the seizure. Seizure of items must be for evidence to a crime or in the interest of public safety. Here the RCMP had unsecured and unoccupied residences and yes I know the RCMP did that by kicking the doors in, but they can't just say after they did that " oh we kicked the doors so be better leave these firearms in a unsecured residence so no one ticked off." They had to deal with it..... Option 1 bring in supplies to re-secure all residences (need to do all residence since non gun owner will be ****ed if their isn't secure) Option 2. Deliver all firearm to owners even though the owner's location is unknown. Option 3 seize firearms for safe keeping and return them to the owner when they are ready to pick them up. Tough decision with a town that is now lake to worry about.

[rottie]

So what your saying is they deleberatly created the situation that allowed them to steal ?
If they damaged property to get in who pays ? Who can prove who did the damage,if my house is locked it more than likely means you are to stay the h*ll out of it,cop or not.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by rottie

So what your saying is they deleberatly created the situation that allowed them to steal ?
If they damaged property to get in who pays ? Who can prove who did the damage,if my house is locked it more than likely means you are to stay the h*ll out of it,cop or not.

The situation was created by the need to search victims and people avoiding the evacuation. So yes they forcefully residences to search for people and they ended up finding guns. They didn't steal them, they were seized, we already covered this.

As for the damage it is a result of the natural disaster as it caused the need to search, it is really not that difficult to connect the dots

[rottie]

not that hard to figure out if my door is locked stay out,as well did any of this occur on the First Nations communities affected,how come Calgary never saw the need to damage private property so they could secure privately owned property ?