RCMP Seized High River Firearms From Homes - break and enter

[GostHacked]

Like truth and accountability ?

yup

And yet when the truth and accountability are sought after, you are labeled 'crazy'.

[AlienB]

1. Disaster zones can be looted,

2. Police require a judicial warrant to conduct a search. This is not to a say a judicial warrant or power to search in event of a disaster such as a flood did not exist to prevent the loss of life and property. Indeed an emergency was declared. Now if a provincial emergency is declared then it is likely local municipal police that do that sort of policing operation. Who does high river policing. Indeed the RCMP is the provincial police force in Alberta, in addition to the Federal Police. They were acting on a provincial emergency declaration made by Alison Redford the premier of Alberta.

3. Some of the guns may have been protected by the seizure.

4. Proof of ownership is complex. Police should have recorded where the guns were taken from, such as house number. providing ID should be enough to prove ownership because they were on their premises. Although there may be exceptions where a gun may have been stored on someone elses property. Police should be able to determine illegal weapons by cross reference PALs with the registered address to determine if any suspicious weapons exist held by unlicensed individuals. A house is a very large case, none the less, yes people could have broken firearms storage rules.

People should seriously consider taking prohibited and restricted and non restricted firearms with them, transferring them to their vehicle etc..much the same as prescription medications. People have a duty to prevent transfer of those items including by negligence. While it is understandable that life comes before property, people who had time to secure especially prohibited and restricted items should have done so by keeping them in an area they have control and access to.

None the less, I would suggest

1. That police issue instructions to secure or surrender controlled materials if enough time exists to prevent involuntary seizure as it causes people to feel violated and victimized.

2. That proper record keeping is kept to insure seized property includes the place of seizure.

Now I wouldn't say in all this the cops weren't the bad guy, it seems like they were just acting on a Provincial emergency declaration. I'm not familiar with any provincial laws, but both the provinces and the federal government have access to the federal emergencies act, so yes in effect martial law was declared, or as close as Canada gets to Martial law without wartime actions imposed. It is the closest civil state to martial law when the emergencies act is invoked.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf

A local authority
(a) shall, at all times, be responsible for the direction and
control of the local authority’s emergency response unless
the Government assumes direction and control under
section 18;
( shall prepare and approve emergency plans and programs;
© may enter into agreements with and make payments or
grants, or both, to persons or organizations for the
provision of services in the development or
implementation of emergency plans or programs.
RSA 2000 cD-13 s11;2007 c12 s9;2010 c5 s4

Declaration of state of emergency
18(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, at any time when
the Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that an emergency
exists or may exist, make an order for a declaration of a state of
emergency relating to all or any part of Alberta.

(4) Unless continued by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly,
an order under subsection (1) expires at the earlier of the following:
(a) at the end of 14 days, but if the order is in respect of a
pandemic influenza, at the end of 90 days;
( when the order is terminated by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council.

Powers of Minister in emergency
19(1) On the making of the declaration and for the duration of the
state of emergency, the Minister may do all acts and take all
necessary proceedings including the following:

(e) control or prohibit travel to or from any area of Alberta;

(g) cause the evacuation of persons and the removal of
livestock and personal property from any area of Alberta
that is or may be affected by a disaster and make
arrangements for the adequate care and protection of those
persons or livestock and of the personal property;

(h) authorize the entry into any building or on any land,
without warrant, by any person in the course of
implementing an emergency plan or program;

(5) On the making of an order under section 18(1), the Managing
Director or some other person whom the Minister appoints is
responsible for the co-ordination and implementation of any or all
necessary plans or programs prepared pursuant to this Act and all
persons and agencies involved in the implementation are subject to
the control and direction of the Managing Director or other person
appointed.
RSA 2000 cD-13 s19;2007 c12 s11;2010 c5 s8

Powers of local authority
24(1) On the making of a declaration of a state of local emergency
and for the duration of the state of local emergency, the local
authority may do all acts and take all necessary proceedings
including the following:
(a) cause any emergency plan or program to be put into
operation;
( exercise any power given to the Minister under section
19(1) in relation to the part of the municipality affected by
the declaration;
© authorize any persons at any time to exercise, in the
operation of an emergency plan or program, any power
given to the Minister under section 19(1) in relation to any
part of the municipality affected by a declaration of a state
of local emergency.
(1.1) If the local authority acquires or utilizes real or personal
property under subsection (1) or if any real or personal property is
damaged or destroyed due to an action of the local authority in
preventing, combating or alleviating the effects of an emergency or
disaster, the local authority shall cause compensation to be paid for
it.

Hey atleast people weren't conscripted right.

Yes wageless conscript workers can be drafted in Alberta if an emergency need for labour exists...

PS xray type trucks and ultrasonics exist to scan inside vehicles and buildings for objects including the material composition.

These are in use at various areas particularly in Us border security, they are also used in drug checkpoints in some places etc..

Here is an example of one such tech, there are many

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar

Edited July 2, 2013 by AlienB

[WWWTT]

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.

Sounds like the rcmp took advantage of a natural disaster to sidestep constitutional rights!

I would expect their actions to undermine future disaster response.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Sounds like the rcmp took advantage of a natural disaster to sidestep constitutional rights!

I would expect their actions to undermine future disaster response.

WWWTT

It sure does not make any sense to me. Seems to be something missing from this story.

Like a massive flood, which led people to move their guns to safer spots (ie, out in the open on top of kitchen cabinets, dressers, laundry machines)?

What's the more likely explanation?

People moved their firearms out of harms way due to the flood, which means out in the open on countertops, dressers, cabinets, etc. The cops see guns out in the open and decide to secure them so looters don't get ahold of them first.

Or...massive plot to confiscate people's firearms, only to give them back less than a week later, for some unknown reason.

[Spiderfish]

Sounds like the rcmp took advantage of a natural disaster to sidestep constitutional rights!

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.

I would expect their actions to undermine future disaster response.

WWWTT

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.

[Bryan]

What's the more likely explanation?

People moved their firearms out of harms way due to the flood, which means out in the open on countertops, dressers, cabinets, etc. The cops see guns out in the open and decide to secure them so looters don't get ahold of them first.

Or...massive plot to confiscate people's firearms, only to give them back less than a week later, for some unknown reason.

Cops didn't just see guns "out in the open" though, they broke in to people's homes and rummaged through their closets. Also, they aren't just "giving them back", they're turning the onus on the owner to prove it.

[Spiderfish]

What's the more likely explanation?

People moved their firearms out of harms way due to the flood, which means out in the open on countertops, dressers, cabinets, etc. The cops see guns out in the open and decide to secure them so looters don't get ahold of them first.

Or...massive plot to confiscate people's firearms, only to give them back less than a week later, for some unknown reason.

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.

[waldo]

And the "jack-boots" have been reined in:

so much for my comment about the (your) sound of gun-reason percolating forward! I thought you said the RCMP actions were supported by the Canadian Firearms Act - yes? And now you throw down the "jack-boots" label?

[Guest Derek L]

Like a massive flood, which led people to move their guns to safer spots (ie, out in the open on top of kitchen cabinets, dressers, laundry machines)?

What's the more likely explanation?

People moved their firearms out of harms way due to the flood, which means out in the open on countertops, dressers, cabinets, etc. The cops see guns out in the open and decide to secure them so looters don't get ahold of them first.

Or...massive plot to confiscate people's firearms, only to give them back less than a week later, for some unknown reason.

Exactly......

[Guest Derek L]

so much for my comment about the (your) sound of gun-reason percolating forward! I thought you said the RCMP actions were supported by the Canadian Firearms Act - yes? And now you throw down the "jack-boots" label?

Don't worry, my reference to “Jack Boots” was pure sarcasm in relation to those pointing towards a “conspiracy”…….Frankly, I doubt the RCMP has the ability to carry out a half decent cover-up……Just look at their handling of public relations in the aftermath.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Oh they understand:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf

(h) authorize the entry into any building or on any land,

without warrant, by any person in the course of

implementing an emergency plan or program;

And remember, Property Rights are not protected under the Charter......

[margrace]

what a bunch of complainers

[scribblet]

This is a discussion, do you have anything intelligent to ad or are you just trolling.

[cybercoma]

they broke in to people's homes and rummaged through their closets.

source?

[Bryan]

Several first person accounts are already listed in this thread.

[waldo]

Several first person accounts are already listed in this thread.

ya, ya... do they rise to the "anecdotal level" of this one, just mentioned a few posts back?

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.

[waldo]

Don't worry, my reference to “Jack Boots” was pure sarcasm in relation to those pointing towards a “conspiracy”…….

phew! Sorry, I missed the sarcasm... alright then, good to know you're (still) being consistent with your original post that offered support for the legality of the RCMP actions. Your skewering of this threads conspiracy proponents is most apropos - carry on!

[scribblet]

source?

There have been links posted on it allready, in one of them it said they checked closets and under beds but I'm not going back to look for it.

[Wild Bill]

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.

Yep! That's the simplest and therefore most likely explanation.

We have seen so many examples of bonehead RCMP leadership over the past couple of decades. Something has changed in how the Mounties recuit, train and promote their leaders.

We used to have Sgt. Preston. Now we have Dudley Doright.

I have always believed that politicians don't like policemen to be TOO intelligent! They like them smart enough to follow orders but not enough to question them.

The RCMP used to be considered the ideal enforcers of justice. Now, they seem to be more "Deputy Dawgs". Certainly, during the Chretien years it often seemed as if the PMO ran the RCMP.

It looks like the politicians have succeeded.

[cybercoma]

When the staunchest gun supporter on the forum doesn't see it as a problem, you need to start asking yourself some questions if you think this is a problem.

[Spiderfish]

When the staunchest gun supporter on the forum doesn't see it as a problem, you need to start asking yourself some questions if you think this is a problem.

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?

[Spiderfish]

When the staunchest gun supporter on the forum doesn't see it as a problem, you need to start asking yourself some questions if you think this is a problem.

....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....

Indeed, and their creditability will have also suffered further…….What surprises me, is the lack of reaction from the Federal Liberals and NDP. Aside from a fractured, fluffy response by my sister’s MP (Randall Garrison) somewhat defending the RCMP, I’ve yet to hear a response from either party leader…….

Do they support the RCMP taking guns property from rural, Western Canadians or do they oppose such actions, in effect siding with the Conservative Government’s stance?

does the Federal Liberals and NDP support the RCMP’s decisions to not enforce several pillars of the Firearms Act?

is this a decision on the part of the RCMP that recognises that under extreme circumstances, firearms owners can bend the laws?

And going forward, what will extreme circumstances be defined as?

In the article above, the RCMP spokesperson, also mentioned that gun owners can bring their guns to friends houses….So I’m forced to ask, are gun owners waived the requirements of safe storage in their friends home? What if they’re unable to store them securely? Are they opening themselves up to the potential for criminal charges?

On reflection, maybe closing the debate might be a little premature.

[Bryan]

When the staunchest gun supporter on the forum doesn't see it as a problem, you need to start asking yourself some questions if you think this is a problem.

Only if you consider yourself a "staunch gun supporter". (I don't)

If you consider yourself a supporter of the right against unreasonable search and seizure, on the other hand, anything short of going apeshit is showing remarkable restraint.

It's a huge problem. Not only is nobody overstating it, even the most vocal opponents are severely understating how bad this is.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Bryan

[AlienB]

Oh they understand:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf

And remember, Property Rights are not protected under the Charter......

The bill of rights does, and the bill of rights is still very much in effect.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/

"(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;"

due process is an important consideration, in exactly what that means, especially in an era where Canada is entering warrantless arrests, arbitrary extended detention, and secret trials. This in addition to political executive actions and authority without Governor General central authority as the point of executive origin, and likewise, where the courts themselves are becoming increasingly dominated by partisan forces. This is not all bad for all people, but the idea of it should be very clear in why the concept of due process of law becomes an existential concept. It is more than ever a two tier society one where executive officers have the power to act in their own coven, while individual citizens have no rights if the privileged wish the to be deprived by the privileged as opposed to the premise of equality before the law, and protection of the law. It is a giant step backward to a time where the people's rights did not exist.

Now I would not say that the occurrence was not a pro bono act. The guns were likely safer in storage. I have yet to hear any reports of guns being damaged while in storage. Everyone will likely be going through problems. I have yet to hear how complex the onus that has been placed is. Perhaps people have the serial number or description of their gun? I think the story that we are not hearing is, how many people cannot claim their gun because they don't have a PAL, and had it "illegally". There are other issues though like needing to go to the RCMP detachment I think people could ask for an injunction or go through the courts as opposed to the RCMP to request the gun mailed back to them or deliver to the court etc.. there are avenue but I think in this instance it will be faster for people just to go get their gun if it is legal.

Of course they may be able to write it off and bill the province for the value of the gun if it is not returned. As any confiscated materials during the emergency can be claimed if damaged, destroyed, lost etc..as a result of seizure.

It seems the ID process isn't overly complex.....

"owners must have photo identification and a possession acquisition licence,"

the photo id thing is strange, as isn't the PAL... a photo ID why have a double requirement?

Apparently the PAL is not 100% required to be physically produced.. so I am guessing photo ID in absence of the physical pal is sufficient as "If owners cannot produce the document, police can check the Canadian Police Information Centre computer"

This is confusing though "If an owner has the licence, police can also give weapons to a friend or relative to store." source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-returning-seized-guns-to-high-river-residents/article12973758/

Edited July 4, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

When the staunchest gun supporter on the forum doesn't see it as a problem, you need to start asking yourself some questions if you think this is a problem.

Don’t get me wrong, I have an issue with this incident on moral/ethical grounds, but the legality, from the information available, the RCMP’s actions do appear “just” in the legal sense…………..The Liberal crafted Firearms Act lets them do all sorts of rotten things to Canadian gun owners.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Derek L