RCMP Seized High River Firearms From Homes - break and enter

[Guest Derek L]

You got it GH

As far as I'm concerned,the RCMP shouldn't be even forcibly entering into homes to look for people!

Just send out the evacuation order and a follow up courtecy knock on the door.

If no one answers then off to the next house.

Sounds like the cops used the circumstance to seize property.

WWWTT

They can under the Canadian Firearms Act.......without a warrant or prior notice.

[cybercoma]

It’s not the difficult…….The RCMP catalogued which guns they took from which house……..When normalcy returns, the owners go to the detachment with a Drivers Licence and their PAL/RPAL and ask for their guns back.

If that's all the proof they're asking for, then no big deal. That's reasonable. If they want some other proof of ownership, like bill of sale or something, then they're out of their minds.

[Guest Derek L]

Pets ??

The RCMP and Military who took possession of the guns wrapped them in police tape and wrote on the tape the address where the gun was taken from. This info was also recorded in the officers notebook.

While their intentions may well be to return the firearms, they want proof of ownership. How many people would have a sales receipt for a 40 or 50 year old gun? Also, they will want to see a PAL.

Of course the RCMP wants to see a PAL/RPAL…….If you have guns in your home and no licence GO Directly to Jail, without collecting $200.….

And proof of ownership is a simple as saying I have guns “X”, “Y” and “Z” and live on 123 First Street…..Here’s my Drivers Licence and PAL/RPAL.

[cybercoma]

I still think the RCMP is probably doing people a favour. If they had guns out, unlocked, they could have easily been stolen. Removing them from people's homes before criminals did was a smart move on the RCMP's part.

[Guest Derek L]

If that's all the proof they're asking for, then no big deal. That's reasonable. If they want some other proof of ownership, like bill of sale or something, then they're out of their minds.

That is all the proof required........In my opinion, there must be a tin-foil shortage in High River..........

One could also speculate that those citizens most vocal at the police roadblocks had their plates run……

[The_Squid]

Thats a grey areaGuns dont have to be stored when the owners homeif the owner is quickly evacuated by the authorities due to the flooding, thats beyond their control.With that said, if the RCMP found loaded firearms, said owners will likely face criminal charges and a lifetime ban on legal gun ownership.

Good point.... Edited June 29, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest Derek L]

I still think the RCMP is probably doing people a favour. If they had guns out, unlocked, they could have easily been stolen. Removing them from people's homes before criminals did was a smart move on the RCMP's part.

I agree.........I can understand the sentiment to an extent on the few gun owners, and would be right up in arms (pardon the pun) if the RCMP was seizing guns from inside safes, trigger locked etc……..And I think it’s a fair situation that they are not pressing charges on those with “unsafely stored guns”, granted gun owners are allowed to keep a loaded gun, in a ruralish area loaded for dangerous game……..So the optics may not look great, but the RCMP has said they were giving them all back……..so meh.

[WWWTT]

That’s a grey area………Guns don’t have to be stored when the owners home……if the owner is quickly evacuated by the authorities due to the flooding, that’s beyond their control…….With that said, if the RCMP found loaded firearms, said owners will likely face criminal charges and a lifetime ban on legal gun ownership.

And such charges would be easily challenged in court and more than likely withdrawn by the crown since the owner never gave consent for entering and the RCMP did not have reasonable proof to believe firearms were being illegally stored to enter.

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

And such charges would be easily challenged in court and more than likely withdrawn by the crown since the owner never gave consent for entering and the RCMP did not have reasonable proof to believe firearms were being illegally stored to enter.

WWWTT

You're not a gun owner, so clearly you don'tr understand the Firearms Act,......that's fine, I wouldn't expect you to....The agreement one must acknowledge when applying for a PAL/RPAL wavies such rights, for that, you can thank the Liberal Government of the 90s………If you and your wife are having an argument and the nosy neighbour calls the cops, they arrive and knock on the door…….If my wife and I have a loud argument and the cops are called, they arrive with a ERT and open the door for me.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

You're not a gun owner, so clearly you don'tr understand the Firearms Act,......that's fine, I wouldn't expect you to....The agreement one must acknowledge when applying for a PAL/RPAL wavies such rights, for that, you can thank the Liberal Government of the 90s………If you and your wife are having an argument and the nosy neighbour calls the cops, they arrive and knock on the door…….If my wife and I have a loud argument and the cops are called, they arrive with a ERT and open the door for me.

And to add:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/page-29.html#h-39

Inspection

• 102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may

  • (a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

  • (b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

  • (c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

  • (d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

[Guest Derek L]

And one thing that did occur to me (well was actually suggested by my 17 year old son just now) in relation to unsafely stored firearms in High River……….If you had valuable guns locked securely in your basement safe, and people’s basements down the street were being flooded, wouldn’t it stand to reason, you’d remove your guns from the basement?

Myself in particular, I’ve got one safe in my basement and though advertised as waterproof (I’d have my doubts if submerged for days on end), in the event of a coming flood, I’d certainly remove it’s contents to “higher ground”…In my case, either to one of the other smaller safes upstairs for the restricted‘s firearms and the rifles to something at least “dryer“… Now for many, their only option is to move said guns to say the upstairs dinning room table or onto the beds upstairs……..

Now many folks, including myself to some extent, that store their guns legally inside a safe, don’t have a one for one trigger lock for each non restricted gun (It’s not required if kept inside a locked container), so it’s reasonable to assume that many folks, under order to evacuate, brought their valuable firearms upstairs, sans trigger locks or the removal of the bolts (so as to make them inoperable) and put them on countertops, tables and beds in hopes of saving their firearms from ruin from the impending flood…..Some might be able to bring their non-restricted firearms with them, along with other valuables, photos and important documents etc……..

But in the case of restricted firearms (Handguns, AR-15s etc), well being evacuated, it’s reasonable to assume that said owners were unable to phone the Canadian Firearms Center in New Brunswick and their Provincial Chief Firearms Officer to receive a short term Authorization to Transport their restricted firearms to the evacuation center down at the local high school gym………Fore if they did transport their restricted firearms, sans a STATT, they would be breaking the law………So do you let that Walther P-38 that Gramps took off a dead Nazi get ruined in the flood? Do you put in your glove box of your car well you’re fleeing the flood? Or do you maybe bring it upstairs and put it on your dresser, inside your home, in your soon to be evacuated town, in hopes of saving it well also not transporting it illegally?

Now is taking grandpas old hunting rifle from the basement and putting it on the kitchen table deemed Safe Storage as per the Firearms Act……No, of course not, but is putting the gun on the kitchen table well you’re home illegal? Not at all………As I said earlier, it’s a grey area, and as mentioned by the RCMP, the guns will be returned to their owners………

Edited June 29, 2013 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

And one thing that did occur to me (well was actually suggested by my 17 year old son just now) in relation to unsafely stored firearms in High River……….If you had valuable guns locked securely in your basement safe, and people’s basements down the street were being flooded, wouldn’t it stand to reason, you’d remove your guns from the basement?

Capitalism to the rescue.....airtight firearms storage bags !! Good down to 50 meters water depth.

[Guest Derek L]

Capitalism to the rescue.....airtight firearms storage bags !! Good down to 50 meters water depth.

Thats not a half bad idea.......a gun condom sure beats Cosmoline or Motor Oil........hmmm

[gunrutz]

There are a variety of ways to legally store a firearm without having it under lock and key, if a locked home isn't safe enough why is a locked room in that home safe enough? Criinials, looters, can break down doors, why is a firearm in a locked home, in a evacuted town, a town underwater, partolled and sealed off by the rcmp a threat to society, by the same token is you gun collection not just as dangerous if you're out of town for a month? Guns are stolen from homes as it is, homes that are more accescible, and not in a flooded ghost town controlled by police, should all guns then be siezed?

How much jewelery or family photos did they save in an effort to protect property, how many bottles of prescription meds did the take control of so looters couldnt sell those to actual criminals? This was about protecting property and public safety right? How many of those firearms were handled by wet hands or dropped in the water, how many of them were cleaned to prevent rust, which will happen quickly. How many of those firearms were in fact stored safely but taken anyway due to a need to 'get the guns' or a simple lack of understanding amongst the rcmp of the actual safe storage laws, which is rampant.

How much compensation will home owners recieve for the tracking of water and mud into the upper dry levels of homes in an effort to remove those guns stored in locked homes, in a town underwater, patrolled and sealed off by the rcmp and the military i might add? Who among you truly believes that under these circumstances that these firearms were a true threat to society? Or is your desire to have guns controlled so strong that you see nothing wrong with seizing peoples valuable property from their locked homes, while the town is patrolled by the rcmp and the military? I presume you won't find either of that property is damaged, which is not unheard of when firearms are seized in much better circumstances, of course the rcmp have the facilities to properly store and care for hundreds of rifles, sure, and rust..meh who cares. It's just someones gun, no big loss.

There is absolutely no reason to have done this, there was no substantial risk to anyone from these firearms.

[waldo]

They can under the Canadian Firearms Act.......without a warrant or prior notice.

the sound of (gun) reason percolating forward... from you! Double-takes all around!

that word needs to get out and calm all the fevered "outrage" being thrown down by the usual suspects shouting, "Police state... warrant-less search & seizure... illegal break & enter... targeting gun owners... targeting High River (and only High River... cause, like... it's the Wildrose leaders constituency)... Alberta Premier Redford gave the order... there's absolutely no reason for this... the evil gun registry... they're busting into gun safes... blah!, blah!, blah!

had to give a chuckle when, on one-hand we get the PMO thundering forward with it's nonsense about "giving the guns back asap"... only to be followed up by statements that Harper Conservative Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, knew all about this (days ago), implying (to the waldo, at least), someone at the RCMP ran this up the food-chain before it was initiated! That lil' ditty needs to also get out to the fevered, "they're comin fer our guns" types!

[waldo]

There is absolutely no reason to have done this, there was no substantial risk to anyone from these firearms.

considering some (as stated) 300 persons in the town defied the evacuation orders, considering all the pent-up frustration of residents evident in the news footage, considering talk of 'tempers being lost', considering outright hostility being directed at the city mayor and the provincial government for not allowing residents back, considering "unknown unknowns", the RCMP would be negligent if they came upon unsecured guns... and just left them out in the open!

[WWWTT]

You're not a gun owner, so clearly you don'tr understand the Firearms Act,......that's fine, I wouldn't expect you to....The agreement one must acknowledge when applying for a PAL/RPAL wavies such rights, for that, you can thank the Liberal Government of the 90s………If you and your wife are having an argument and the nosy neighbour calls the cops, they arrive and knock on the door…….If my wife and I have a loud argument and the cops are called, they arrive with a ERT and open the door for me.

And clearly you don't understand how the law works.

If the police feel that there are reasonable grounds to enter than it's legit!

A domestic disturbance is legit!

I should have been more clear and listed more than one reason,but I had you on my ignore list for so long (and still do),I forgot how ignorant you can be of the how law works.

Either way,if you want to continue this argument,show me an actual case where the police entered to search for someone during a flood evacuation order,found a weapon stored improperly,seized,then successfully charged and convicted the owner!

Good luck!

WWWTT

[waldo]

And clearly you don't understand how the law works.

it seems the MLW member pointed to the 'Canadian Firearms Act' as the basis that supports the RCMP actions. It would seem prudent upon you to suggest what actual law(s) you presume the RCMP to have broken... since you imply you understand how the law works.

[WWWTT]

Section 7 and 8 of the charter to start with.

Then there is section 24,where evidence is illegally obtained.

Also,as far as I know,no one has yet been charged!

I am responding to Derek L assumption that the rcmp can charge and have the crown attempt to convict.

This has not yet been done as far as I know.

Better yet Waldo,why don't you not let yourself get involved with this matter,you are getting confused as to the specifics here.

WWWTT

[Argus]

That’s correct……..The RCMP didn’t seize guns stored in safes, trigger locked or with the bolts removed.

How do you know? They seized several hundred, by their own admission, in a town the size of High River. Are ALL these guns being stored illegally? If so why is there no suggestion of charges?

[Argus]

That is all the proof required........In my opinion, there must be a tin-foil shortage in High River..........

The RCMP have not stated what proof of ownership they require. They did not say that people had to show proof they lived at the house where the guns were seized. They said they needed to show proof of ownership.

[scribblet]

Canadian Firearms Act.......

You have a problem with people needing a license now?

Please don't impute words or thoughts to me. Where did I say I had a problem with people needing a licence. I agree with Pal and the FAC.

[Argus]

it seems the MLW member pointed to the 'Canadian Firearms Act' as the basis that supports the RCMP actions. It would seem prudent upon you to suggest what actual law(s) you presume the RCMP to have broken... since you imply you understand how the law works.

Breaking, entering and theft?

[Argus]

And to add:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/page-29.html#h-39

Inspection

• 102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may

  • (a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

  • (b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

  • (c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

  • (d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

None of that applies to ordinary people who have a rifle or two. The above clearly applies to gun nuts with vast collections, and to businesses. You also ignored the following restrictions:

• 104. (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except

  • (a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and

  • (b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Please don't impute words or thoughts to me. Where did I say I had a problem with people needing a licence. I agree with Pal and the FAC.

You brought it up in a post where you were criticizing the reclamation requirements for firearms. If you didn't mean to criticize people needing to show a firearms license to retrieve their firearms, then you weren't very clear in your post why you were bringing it up at all. It's become quite a chore with some posters complaining about people putting words in their mouths. Asking you a question about what was clearly a criticism of people needing to show proof of a firearm license to get their guns back is not "imputing words or thoughts to you" at all. If that's not what you meant, then you need to write better responses that more accurately articulate your arguments. It's not my problem that you're not getting your point across. It's yours.