Wild Bill Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 tis what I said... as well! I trust this will temper your enthusiasm for lambasting the "left" as the causal link to an absence of property rights in the Charter. Carry on! I grant what you say, Waldo. Still, Ed Broadbent refused to sign on unless property rights were left out. His was the more immediate reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 Derek, I think you have made an important point. Much of the outrage over what the RCMP may or may not have done stems from a feeling of a right to property. It's true that this right was deliberately omitted from our Charter. However, it didn't end there! Large numbers of Canadians never agreed with that decision and have never accepted it. The passage of time has not changed their minds. If anythng, their resentment has only festered. The right to property to such people is so basic as to be almost instinctive. Asking them to accept the idea is like asking a man with no legs to dance for you. No matter how persuasive you may be and no matter how you may control his education as he grows up, it is never going to happen. This feeling is perhaps more intense on the prairies as on the streets of Toronto. People there seem to be more self-reliant and when you have to work hard for what you have there is a natural tendency to resent and resist someone taking it from you. The RCMP has made a huge PR mistake that will cost them dearly, at least in that part of Canada. It doesn't matter if you have the power to do whatever you want. It is impossible to prevent victims of your power from resenting it and sooner or later wanting payback. That payback in Canada thankfully tends to come at the ballot box. In other countries such as Egypt, Syria or Libya it may be violent. It all comes back to the concept of "consent to be governed". Respect can never be demanded or taken for granted. It must be earned and freely given. The ommission of property rights in our Charter will be a contentious issue FOREVER! No matter what the champions of the left may desire. Good to see you back Bill...I agree 100% on the property rights issue, and I believe (not certain as I’m not home till tomorrow evening to check further references) that it was the Federal NDP and several Provinces (IIRC Manitoba & New Brunswick) that wanted property rights precluded, namely as alluded to by Waldo, for First Nations Land Claims…….With all that, I’d think this topic would be worth it’s own thread and I’d gladly contribute (and if required, start it) this weekend….. But further news in relation to the High River incident: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-commissioner-asks-for-probe-into-alberta-gun-seizures/article13031304/ One week after a top local Mountie defended the decision to seize guns from flooded High River, Alta., the RCMP commissioner has asked for an investigation. At the request of Commissioner Bob Paulson, the RCMP’s own watchdog will review police actions in High River, a town south of Calgary that was worst-hit by last month’s flood. ?????? ?????? Premier Alison Redford has dismissed the gun seizure issue, saying she hopes “we can focus on more important matters at hand.” Opposition leader Danielle Smith, who is also the MLA representing High River, welcomed the investigation, and said gun seizures “damage the trust residents have for their leaders and will make future disaster situations more difficult to manage effectively.” Smith did say initially that she supported the move……..Her about face took place after the reaction of citizens became known………Again I’ll ask: What is the position of the Federal NDP and Liberal Parties? I dare them (and any in the media) to make their feelings on the issue known…….especially to Western Canadians, what with all those new seats we’ll be getting in time for 2015.… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 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)? Firearms can be cleaned/replaced. I am not sure I would spend that much effort on the guns as I would on my family/pets. What's the more likely explanation? If there is a risk of a flood, would hiding under a bed or in a closet be one of your options? 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. I am not buying this at all anymore. The guns would have been safely stored in mud where no one would see it if the flooding was that severe. Also no firearm owner in their right mind would leave the firearm right out in the open. Even if they were not stored properly most likely they were NOT in plain view. Or...massive plot to confiscate people's firearms, only to give them back less than a week later, for some unknown reason. I would not say it is a plot, but I believe it was part of their directives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 I would not say it is a plot, but I believe it was part of their directives. To what end? If it was difficult or impossible to get their guns back, I'm sure we would have heard people whining about that in the news already. So the guns were confiscated only to be given back right away. It's obvious that the cops were worried about looters during the state of emergency stealing people's firearms that were easily accessible, like under beds or in closets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 ... It's obvious that the cops were worried about looters during the state of emergency stealing people's firearms that were easily accessible, like under beds or in closets. So did the "cops" also confiscate steak knives, meat cleavers, axes, archery equipment, etc., etc. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton74 Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 What about broom sticks as a man was charged for possession of a dangerous weapon when chasing off raccoon's in his backyard. IT is a joke that anything can be considered a dangerous weapon in the right context and to suit the police for arresting you. If the RCMP were seizing the weapons due to unsafe storage how did they find out without being in the house without a warrant. I understand the argument about safety but innocent untill proven guilty is a much more important factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 If the RCMP were seizing the weapons due to unsafe storage how did they find out without being in the house without a warrant. I understand the argument about safety but innocent untill proven guilty is a much more important factor. a warrant wasn't necessary - perhaps read the thread before jumping in over your head! The weapons weren't seized... they were secured! what does your "innocent until proven guilty" have to do with..... anything in this matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted July 20, 2013 Report Share Posted July 20, 2013 waldo - can you please explain the difference between "seized" and "secured". especially when the RCMP entered w/o notice and confiscated pivate and legal property? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 20, 2013 Report Share Posted July 20, 2013 Connotation, denotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) And an update: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Most+confiscated+firearms+have+been+returned+High+River/8684235/story.html More than three-quarters of all firearms confiscated by the RCMP from empty homes in High River during a mandatory evacuation of the flooded-stricken town last month have been reunited with their owners. Staff Sgt. Patricia Neely said 404 of the 539 seized firearms had been claimed by their owners by Friday morning. I wonder how many of the remaining firearms owners have a home to return their firearms to? Gun owners who don’t have a possession acquisition licence are required to have a friend or family member store the firearm until a new licence is obtained, Neely said Now if that’s a case of the owner losing their licence during the flood, I can understand, but if said gun owner didn’t have a licence to begin with, there should be charges, as per the Canadian Firearms Act. Some clarification is required. No charges have been laid against any gun owner, she said. But in some cases, should charges have been sought? Is this a case of the RCMP interpreting a poorly written law? The seizures angered many town residents, some saying Mounties had, in fact, taken guns from secured storage units. Neely said there has been no indication that has happened. As I said in reference to the posted urban legend several weeks ago, if the RCMP was removing safely stored firearms, we'd see pictures all over the internet. “We did have one gun owner come to claim his gun and we did not have it,” she said. “He called us back shortly later to say that he had located them where he left them — in his gun locker.” Edited July 21, 2013 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 RCMP siezed trigger locked guns. Guns legally stored. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130722-083250.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 RCMP siezed trigger locked guns. Guns legally stored. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130722-083250.html Not necessarily, from the article: On Friday, Sgt. Patricia Neely of the RCMP told Sun News Network that some of the 539 weapons seized during the High River flooding had trigger locks. This brings into question if the RCMP broke any laws by seizing secured weapons. If I were to put my restricted firearms on my bed with just trigger locks, they are not legally stored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 27, 2013 Report Share Posted July 27, 2013 Not necessarily, from the article: If I were to put my restricted firearms on my bed with just trigger locks, they are not legally stored. Actually, they are. Read the regulations again. 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. Its right there all on its own. Rendered inpoperable in one of two ways, OR stored in a locked container, receptacle, or room. Not both, OR. A trigger lock, or removing the bolt is all that is required by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 28, 2013 Report Share Posted July 28, 2013 Actually, they are. Read the regulations again.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. Its right there all on its own. Rendered inpoperable in one of two ways, OR stored in a locked container, receptacle, or room. Not both, OR. A trigger lock, or removing the bolt is all that is required by law. Did you read your own link? Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms..........As I said above: If I were to put my restricted firearms on my bed with just trigger locks, they are not legally stored. Restricted Firearms..........ie Handguns & AR-15s (or other semi-auto, centerfire rifles and shotguns with a barrel less than 18.5") As such, if Billy Bob put his handguns and favorite AR-15 trigger locked upstairs on the bed beside his trigger locked hunting rifle and .22, the handguns and AR-15 are not stored legally........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 Waldo - you're strangely silent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Uh-oh........ The Red Deer Creek fire in British Columbia is within ten kilometers of the Alberta border, prompting the Municipal District of Greenview to issue an evacuation order. The order applies to a remote part of northwestern Alberta south of the Wapiti River, west of Nose Creek and the Two Lakes Road and north of Township 61. People in those areas are ordered to leave immediately, close but not lock doors and gates and take all personal items. I assume to facilitate not kicking down doors, that in-turn have to be replaced by the RCMP???? I wonder how many gun owning residents will be taking their firearms with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Gun nut paranoia... Next people will probably claim the guvmint started the fire so they can confiscate their guns. If guns are unsecured, I'm sure they will be taken. It's common sense.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Gun nut paranoia... Next people will probably claim the guvmint started the fire so they can confiscate their guns. If guns are unsecured, I'm sure they will be taken. It's common sense.... I have no doubt that well the RCMP are looking for scared and confused residents hiding in the backs of closets, under beds and in underpants drawers, if the come across firearms, they will clearly scoop them up…….No argument here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman29 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) just think what a bear could do with them though or a stray uav... personally if i had to choose between a fire getting my guns are the police hey as long as I've gotten one b that isnt that what cases are for I think the precedent is being set here if you have to leave your house take your guns with you and make sure you can transport them safely Edited July 17, 2014 by gman29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 I think the precedent is being set here if you have to leave your house take your guns with you and make sure you can transport them safely I’d be very surprised if going forward people would indeed leave their guns (and other valuables) at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Yep, that's what we need. When there's a flood a bunch of people heading to the community center with a bunch of guns. What could possibly go wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Yep, that's what we need. When there's a flood a bunch of people heading to the community center with a bunch of guns. What could possibly go wrong? You believe the lethality of a firearm changes due to it’s geographic location? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 You believe the lethality of a firearm changes due to it’s geographic location? That's a silly question. Now, if you want to talk about the possibility of misuse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 That's a silly question. Now, if you want to talk about the possibility of misuse... So you’re now suggesting that PAL/RPAL holders will misuse their firearms because they aren’t at home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 So you’re now suggesting that PAL/RPAL holders will misuse their firearms because they aren’t at home? No, just maybe a 3 year old will accidentally shoot her 2 year old brother as happenned in Utah not so long ago. And that's just one story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.