Spiderfish

Yeah, activists don't typically have any agenda at all. I doubt Harper has much control over what charges the courts are pursuing in BC. Or is this guy suggesting that Harper is going around personally laying possession charges in BC? I would have to see something a bit more solid than some pot activists claim. At any rate, even if it were true there could be any number of factors contributing to a possible rise in possession charges unrelated Harper being in power.

..." If it's on the top shelf, we're not searching the top shelf. If we open the closet door and there's a bunch of guns that are not secured, then obviously they may be gone. But if they're on a shelf or they're out of site, we're not searching for guns." I can see how it could be open to interpretation.

Again, I can't disagree. But I offer that the people of High River likely aren't too interested in Chess at the moment. Maybe, unless the push back is coming from the perspective of property rights, not gun rights. Which only enforces the possiblility that this is not sitting well with many people who are looking at this from the property rights perspective. To them, it has nothing to do with gun control, only violation of personal property. I come at it from several angles, I can see the discomfort people have with the strategy by the police of using a disaster and search for victims as an opportunity to poke around and confiscate personal property that they deem unsafe. As a person who owns a few guns myself, I can also put myself in the position of the people affected by this and empahize with their situation and the feeling of violation they must feel, being victimized first by the river, then by the people who are supposed to be helping them.

Not that it legitimizes this "story" any more, but Roy Green interviewed this fellow on the weekend as well. From his first hand account, the story as he describes is accurate.

Scribblet was responding to a source request for verification to the comment that police were breaking into homes and rummaging through closets. The interview by Sgt. Neely confirms this.

You are looking at the bigger picture here, and I applaud you for that. I'm looking and responding to the more immediate situation at hand. I can see why there are more than a few High River residents that are pissed off. They have every right to be. I think the poorly written Firearms Act and the discretionary interpretation and enforcement, combined with the legal, yet sleazy practice of hiding behind the Emergency Measures Act to gain unauthorized entrance to homes, then using the Firearms Act to grab the guns is sure to be challenged by residents. This is sure to have repercussions politically, I agree with you. In the meantime, something smells rotten in High River, and it's not just the flood soaked couch festering in the sun.

Actually Derek, RCMP Sgt. Patricia Neely was interviewed on Roy Green Show last weekend and did confirm during the interview that they did go through closets and under beds. The exchange went as follows: Roy: what does readily visible mean? Sgt. Neely: If a gun was on a shelf in a closet, its still going to be on the shelf in the closet. Does that mean that we didn't look under a bed or in a closet? We do know that people in cases of emergency and extreme stress do hide in places we wouldn't normally expect to find them. We were not searching for guns. We did not open a drawer. If a human did not fit somewhere, we did not look. Roy: What would make a gun that's on a shelf in a closet any less of a challenge to an RCMP officer than one that's lying on a bed? If it's readily visible when you open up the closet door, is it any less of a concern than if the gun is lying on the bed? Sgt. Neely: And again...is it readily visible? If it's on the top shelf, we're not searching the top shelf. If we open the closet door and there's a bunch of guns that are not secured, then obviously they may be gone. But if they're on a shelf or they're out of site, we're not searching for guns.

There are a few people using conspiracy, massive plot, etc. to describe this situation. I still believe this is not the case. If I were to guess what may have happened, I think it's possible that it may be a few overzealous individuals on the police force using loose or perhaps incorrect defiinitions of improper storage of firearms to justify removing the guns from houses. I believe there are likely a few firearms that were technically stored improperly, without trigger locks or bolts removed, but I also believe that there are many that were likely taken that shouldn't have been. This is speculation at this point, but if it's true, it will likely be challenged (as it should) so will probably come out. I also believe that RCMP have discretion and the ablility to use good judgement, espectially in a very unique, and dynamic situation such as this. I think that if the front door of a house is open and an unsecure gun is sitting on the kitchen counter inside in plain view, then it should be secured by the police. But if the police have to break into the locked house and search for the firearms in closets or under beds, which they admitted to doing, perhaps good judgement would inlcude the possibility to leave things alone, rather than criminalize someone for simply trying to protect their property during a flood.

You got it. I have a big problem making criminals out of victims in this disaster because they were trying to protect their property from flood damage. But I also don't think the police can play both sides of the fence, using the Criminal Code and Firearms Act as justification for seizing the guns, then saying to people that they can come down to the station and get their guns back with no repercussions. It doesn't add up, either the guns were improperly stored and were seized as a result, or they weren't, in which case they should have just left them the hell alone.

....Actually, going back through the thread, it appears there are a couple of outstanding questions regarding this issue, not sure if any answers have been given yet.... On reflection, maybe closing the debate might be a little premature.

Good point, we should shut down all subsequent debate on this issue since Derek is onboard. Derek, how does the siezure of guns from a residence by police due to improper storage as defined under the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code affect one's ability to retain their firearms licence in future renewals?

From what I understand, overland flooding is an act of god, and not insurable. Sewer backup, however is covered under many policies. I believe these claims are what the insurance companies are denying, upsetting people who are supposed to have this coverage. It seems to come down to the fine print, the companies that have denied the claims do offer sewer backup coverage unless the sewer backup was caused by flooding.

According to the Firearms Act, a gun with a trigger lock installed or bolt removed is a secured gun, regardless of where one decides to store it. Maybe they don't sell trigger locks in High River? Maybe that's it. By their own admission, the police were not in the homes to look for guns, but for people (5 days after the fact). The reason they are making this known is because they obviously realize that they had no right or authority to enter people's private dwellilngs otherwise. I don't recall hearing of a single rescue resulting from this comprehensive search for victims. No massive plot...but maybe an order given by someone without fully comprehending and understanding the property rights of citizens. Certainly this order was given without regard to the feeling of futher violation by the vitims of this disaster.

You have to wonder if this is the case. The guns were seized without a warrant from private residences by gaining access through the Emergency Measures Act, but the guns were seized under the Criminal Code. There is a process under the Criminal Code whereby application can be made for review and investigation into improper seizure of property, heard by a judge, and with testimony under oath required by the officer who carried out the seizure. I have a feeling more light will be shed on this situation and motive in the near future. That's exactly what I said in a previous post. Unauthorized seizure of personal property after being ordered to evacuate does not instill a great deal of confidence or trust.

Has it been determined that the guns were stored unsafely? It's hard to figure out how police found hundreds of unsafely stored firearms just laying around in a town of roughly 13,000 people, yet apparently not a single improperly stored gun was found in Calgary, where over 75,000 people were evacuated.

I heard a report on the radio from a citizen in High River this weekend who was one of the first group of people allowed back into their homes to assess the damage. He said he had a rifle stored in the back of a closet behind a bunch of clothes out of sight secured in a hard shell case. Apperently the police found it, seized the rifle, and left the case behind. His account was that one would have to dig through the closet just to find the gun, so it seems unlikely that they were looking for people. This report contradicts the information given by Sgt. Patricia Nealy the day before, where it was clearly indicated by her when asked on the radio that "this was a search and rescue mission, RCMP were not looking for guns, and that if rifles were not left out in the open, they were not taken." She went on to say that they looked under beds and in closets to see if anyone was in those locations, but if guns were not in plain view, they would not be taken. Bear in mind, this comprehensive search for potential victims that may be hiding under their beds or in their closets was completed 5 days after the initial evacuation order.

It will be interesting to see the details come out on this one. I can see removing guns that are unsafely stored, however it can't be overlooked that this is a bit of an unusual circumstance, and this fact should be taken into consideration by enthusiastic police when invading someone's private property. These people were given very little warning that their homes were in danger of flooding. They likely tried to get as many things out of the basement as possible before they were forced to leave. If my home was about to be potentially flooded, and I grabbed my guns from the basement and took them to the top floor of my home and laid them on the bed in the master bedroom safely stored with a trigger lock installed or the bolt removed, I would fully expect them to be right where I left them when I got back home. I won't speculate as to what the police considered unsafe storage when making the decision to remove personal property from these homes, this will be revealed soon enough. I can only hope for everyone's sake that they followed the definition as laid out in the Canadian firearms Act, or the RCMP will have more than a bit of explaining to do. these people have been victimized by a devastating flood, the last thing the police should be doing is using a devastating event like this as an opportunity to victimize them again. One last thought, the police have mentioned that there were a few hundred residents that refused to leave their homes when asked, complicating the rescue and search effort. They were very critical about complying with evacuation orders when given, for the safety of everyone. My thought is that removal of personal property by police after being told to leave does not instill trust and confidence in people. Actions like this are sure to make the job of evacuating people more difficult in future evacuations.

He's already been cornholed for over $100,000 fighting charges which he won. He has mentioned several times that the reason he won't sue the Star is because the cost would be too high. Maybe Gawker would consider contributing to his legal fund. I hear they have a couple hundred grand just burning a hole in their pocket.

Well...you were convinced that Ford was guilty of the murder of Anthony Smith...I guess complete dedication to an idea without examining other possiblilities can distort one's perception of facts. I guess we can throw another silly accusation out the window. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/man-pleads-guilty-in-shooting-death-linked-to-rob-ford-controversy/article12856164/?cmpid=rss1

Haters are going to hate, but journalistic integrity is something that needs to be adhered to by any media outlet looking to gain influence and respect. In my opinion, The Star crossed the line into tabloid journalism territory some time ago, and once that line is crossed, it's pretty tough to go back. I believe people with similar political leanings to the Star will continue to support them. But as a respected media source, I believe they have already lost a lot of support from many who don't share their distain for Rob Ford and the tactics they have used. There will be a consequence to journalistic decisions they have made.

Even a win for Ford is punitive. He's out of pocket over $100,000 defending this one charge alone. Democracy fortunately wasn't derailed in this case, he's still mayor. But every one of these smear campaigns scandals weakens him, even if he successfully defends himself, which seems to be the strategy of his opponents.

Some of the most significant damage appears to have happened in the Cougar Creek area of Canmore. The loss is unfortunate, but not all that surprising. I spent 14 years in Canmore and lived close to the area that was affected. I helped build many of the houses that are now damaged and/or condemned. The creek starts back in the mountain valley and is normally a dry gravel bed by the time it reaches town. Every year at about this time, for about 3 or 4 days it turns into a torrent, moving thousands of tons of rock and scree down through town depositing it into the bow river. Every second year or so, the town would bring in heavy equipment in May and start digging gravel, rocks and debris out from around the bridges when the runoff started, to prevent them from being washed away completely. The excavators and hoes would be put in place for a month or two, digging and hauling away rock and gravel, then would be loaded up and taken away till next year. In 2005, they almost lost all of the bridges. This year, they did lose them. I saw this area go from untouched wilderness, to fully developed subdivision. I used to hike up the creek bed through a couple of kms of scree and over boulders the size of small cars to get into the canyon it originates from, wondering where all of the rocks, trees, etc. came from and what kind of force would deposit them into the huge, wide alluvial fan at the bottom of the canyon. After seeing the typical spring runoff, I stopped wondering. Over the next few years, I saw new development encroach further and further into the creek boundary and flood plain. The developers lined the banks of the creek with nice boulders and rocks to prevent erosion, the landscaping looked great. My hike got a lot easier, no more boulders and scree, they were replaced with nice asphalt walking paths and sod. I couldn’t help but notice however, that many of the million dollar homes were built literally right on top of the scree and rock that had been deposited in the past by spring runoff. Did the planners really think that once the area was developed, the spring runoff would respect their effort? It’s hard to understand. I feel bad for the people who have lost their homes, it’s sickening to see some of the pictures and video. But I also wonder if their decision to buy a property on the bank of a creek that dramatically re-shapes itself every couple of years contributes to the loss.

I believe it wasn't the driving infraction that made Mulcair's incident news, but his reaction to being stopped and his Reese Witherspoon strategy for trying to yap his way out of it.

I'm surprised, your memory and recollection of past exchanges is usually a lot shaprer than it seems to be at present. Regardless, I'm glad we finally agree on something.

The neighbor’s dog barks and barks. It barks at everything, it just won’t stop. It doesn’t realize that Its bark has lost all effect, people have simply gotten used to the noise. I’ve given up on it, too. I apologize that I have no interest or urge to engage you in debate. How about from this point forward, we simply declare you the winner of any and all subsequent interactions between us.