RCMP Seized High River Firearms From Homes - break and enter

[cybercoma]

Breaking, entering and theft?

Everyone's making a lot of assumptions here. This whole situation can go either way. Either the RCMP were actually helping people out by securing firearms that were left in the open and could be stolen by looters or this was an orchestrated attempt to disarm the population. I'd like to think it's not the latter that they actually had a good reason for doing what they did.

[Argus]

Everyone's making a lot of assumptions here. This whole situation can go either way. Either the RCMP were actually helping people out by securing firearms that were left in the open and could be stolen by looters or this was an orchestrated attempt to disarm the population. I'd like to think it's not the latter that they actually had a good reason for doing what they did.

I do not think this was an effort to disarm the population. I think what we have here is an arrogant mindset which has never accepted that anyone other than police have a legitimate need to own any kind of firearm, and which simply assumes it has the authority to do anything it chooses to do. Some senior mountie decided that only the RCMP could be trusted to take care of these firearms, and simply gave the order to seize them. I doubt it ever occurred to him to wonder if he had that authority. From what I know about senior mounties your IQ has to be an additional ten points lower than average for every rank you rise.

And I doubt these were all sitting in the open. I think the mounties had to look for them, and I think they WERE looking for them.

[scribblet]

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.

Total nonsense.

[scribblet]

Taking advantage of a natural disaster to seize guns is shameless, and note this is the only riding we know of, where this was done. Police are supposed to protect us, and our property from looters among other things, so the very idea that a police force would become looters, breaking into homes then removing property from people evacuated from their homes is repugnant.

There was an emergency declaration which gave sweeping powers to the authorities. However, this is done in order to expedite the response to the immediate situation and to save lives. It would be a huge stretch to interpret that as being able to break/enter then confiscate personal property. It is obvious that as long as the warrantless search provisions in the Firearms Act remain, some police officers will abuse their authority.

The big question is: Was every house broken into or did they target those with registered guns (under the now defunct registry). What was the ‘urgent need’ to break and enter as the residents had already been evacuated and homes secured. Obviously the firearms were safe if these criminals had to physically break into homes to steal them!

Also, if those firearms were made inoperable with a secure locking device as in a trigger lock, and or had the bolt removed, they were safely contained in the person’s home as it was locked. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm

[Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Right wing gun nuts are overplaying their hand on this one. People don't have the right to endanger others by storing firearms unsafely in their houses, accidental discharges can easily penetrate walls and harm nearby persons, or they could end up on the black market. If the RCMP is performing search and rescue and notice that Billy-Bob left his potentially loaded gun sitting on the table better the RCMP confiscate it than let it sit there for who knows what to happen. As far as I'm concerned the RCMP has been unnecessarily merciful in these seizures, as they should really be bringing criminal charges against these people.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Sheogorath_The_Mad

[Wild Bill]

Right wing gun nuts are overplaying their hand on this one. People don't have the right to endanger others by storing firearms unsafely in their houses, accidental discharges can easily penetrate walls and harm nearby persons, or they could end up on the black market. If the RCMP is performing search and rescue and notice that Billy-Bob left his potentially loaded gun sitting on the table better the RCMP confiscate it than let it sit there for who knows what to happen. As far as I'm concerned the RCMP has been unnecessarily merciful in these seizures, as they should really be bringing criminal charges against these people.

I'm curious as to how you can state that "Right wing gun nuts are overplaying their hand on this one". So far no one has cited any proof as to exactly how the RCMP have conducted their search and seizures. You could be right or you could be wrong.

Do you have some info that we are all unaware? Without such, you are essentially just saying that YOU trust the RCMP in this instance and therefore everyone else should do the same!

Even more, you are branding those who disagree with your argument as "right wing gun nuts". Isn't that a bit arrogant? A POV more suited to a Moses on Mt. Sinai, carrying wisdom carved in stone?

If your words do not mean what they appear to say to me, could you please explain how I took them i error?

I'm not saying you are wrong, necessarily. I just think you should offer something more concrete than blind faith.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Wild Bill

[GostHacked]

Canadian Firearms Act.......

Let's see the cite.

[WWWTT]

I do not think this was an effort to disarm the population. I think what we have here is an arrogant mindset which has never accepted that anyone other than police have a legitimate need to own any kind of firearm, and which simply assumes it has the authority to do anything it chooses to do. Some senior mountie decided that only the RCMP could be trusted to take care of these firearms, and simply gave the order to seize them. I doubt it ever occurred to him to wonder if he had that authority. From what I know about senior mounties your IQ has to be an additional ten points lower than average for every rank you rise.

And I doubt these were all sitting in the open. I think the mounties had to look for them, and I think they WERE looking for them.

Other than your comment on the intelligence of an rcmp officer,I will have to agree with you on this.

The cops should be criticized for their actions!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

And I doubt these were all sitting in the open. I think the mounties had to look for them, and I think they WERE looking for them.

But the mounties have openly said that they never entered any premise to search for weapons!

Therefore,by their own admission,they did not have any grounds to enter for the sole purpose to seize any weapons.

In other words,they screwed up and everyone will get their arms back and no charges will be laid.

The rcmp,in my opinion will be more than happy to bury this one asap!

WWWTT

[kimmy]

*IF* the police have a legitimate reason to be in a house, and

*IF* they see evidence of illegal activity in plain view,

they are permitted to act.

If they're in your house over a domestic disturbance complaint, they can't go searching through your house for drugs while they're there. But if they're in your house over a domestic disturbance complaint and they see a bag of coke on the table and they can smell your grow-op in the basement, you're in trouble.

I think that judge would probably decide that searching for people in need of rescue or violating evacuation orders was probably a legitimate reason for police to enter a residence. And if there were unsafely stored firearms in plain sight, the police were clearly allowed to take appropriate action.

It is a sad truth that there are scumbag individuals who use tragedies like mass evacuations as an opportunity for criminal activity. Here in the Kimmy area of BC, we had mass evacuations due to forest fires a couple of years ago, and there were numerous incidents of people sneaking into the evacuated areas to rob unoccupied homes. There is a significantly higher risk of burglary in situations like this, because the criminals *know* that the homes are unoccupied. As cybercoma said earlier, the RCMP probably did people a favor by taking custody of their guns before a burglar got to them.

-k

[GostHacked]

What is the crime rate of this sleepy little town of about 20,000 residents?

What is the focus on this town? Why were there no other reports of this in other affected areas of Alberta?

[scribblet]

Canadian Firearms Act.......

You mean Bill C-68, I've allready mentioned that one. Did they do this in Calgary, don't think so, why only High River?

Also, producing a PAL or a FAC doesn't prove ownership as it does not list the guns and so on. Owners would have to provide some other proof of ownership. I have a feeling that a lot of people won't be getting them back.

The RCMP have been changing their story line

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/29/matt-gurney-high-river-citizens-right-to-be-suspicious-as-rcmp-changes-story-over-removal-of-guns/

Corporal Darrin Turnbull told the National Post as officers swept houses for survivors or abandoned pets, necessarily checking closets and under beds in that process, they would find firearms, and decide in the heat of the moment whether it was safe to leave them there.

There’s a certain logic to that, and given the broad authority granted by emergency declarations, such actions would almost certainly be legal. But you can’t blame gun owners for being suspicious.

Cpl. Turnbill reported many firearms were left scattered about where their owners dropped them as they fled the sudden rise in water levels. You can understand a police officer who finds a stack of guns next to an open front door might feel they’re better off in a police lockup. Fair enough.

But what about a trigger-locked gun on the top shelf of a bedroom closet in a locked house? There’s no threat to public safety there. If guns were taken in those kinds of situations, too, it won’t feel like the RCMP did you a favour by securing your gun. It will feel like it seized your lawful, and lawfully stored, property when it saw the chance to do so.

We won’t know the details until residents are able to return home and discover exactly how thorough the RCMP’s gun-removal efforts were. But if individual officers were waging their own little gun-clearing campaign under the cover offered by an unfolding disaster, High River residents — and lawful Canadian gun owners everywhere — will be entirely justified in raising hell.

[scribblet]

I'm curious as to how you can state that "Right wing gun nuts are overplaying their hand on this one". So far no one has cited any proof as to exactly how the RCMP have conducted their search and seizures. You could be right or you could be wrong.

Do you have some info that we are all unaware? Without such, you are essentially just saying that YOU trust the RCMP in this instance and therefore everyone else should do the same!

.....................

More than arrogant. I'm not gun nut, I don't own one one nor do I wish to.

The police need explain exactly how many they took, under what circumstances. They must clarify that they only took firearms that were indeed stored unsafely or they were illegally taking private property. They need to clarify that they actually found them in ‘plain sight’ with no locking devices etc., and did not go through closets etc. looking for anything. Did they break into locked gun cabinet?

Did they adhere to the firearms act or ignore it. What constituted unsafely stored if they followed the act as it’s laid out? A non-restricted firearm must either be equipped with a locking device (i.e. trigger lock), or be stored with critical components removed kept apart from the gun. Did the police do what they thought as opposed to what the law actually says, did it differ?

They also need to clarify what will constitute “proof of ownership,” now the long-gun registry is scrapped, what will police consider proof of ownership? Many questions to be answered.

Edited June 29, 2013 by scribblet

[waldo]

What is the focus on this town? Why were there no other reports of this in other affected areas of Alberta?

Did they do this in Calgary, don't think so, why only High River?

why... I understand the whole town was evacuated! Like, have you actually seen and pics/video of the damage?... to the complete town!

why not answer your own questions, if with nothing more than your continued wild speculation? As you say, "why only High River"?

.

[waldo]

I'm curious as to how you can state that "Right wing gun nuts are overplaying their hand on this one". So far no one has cited any proof as to exactly how the RCMP have conducted their search and seizures. You could be right or you could be wrong.

WB, your own mention of 'no proof' speaks exactly to the point. None of that has stopped the rabid fervour, particularly those media outlets working overtime to fuel the flames of typically right-wing gunNutJobbery!

[Sheogorath_The_Mad]

I'm curious as to how you can state that "Right wing gun nuts are overplaying their hand on this one". So far no one has cited any proof as to exactly how the RCMP have conducted their search and seizures.

Well that's exactly the point, gun nuts are spewing out some rather ridiculous statements without anything to back it up. Until more comes out I'm inclined to believe the RCMP seized unsafely stored guns during their search and rescue efforts.

And I wasn't referring to everyone who disagrees with my opinion as a right wing gun nut, just the one ones spouting off on how this is some sinister effort the disarm the population or other such drivel.

[Wild Bill]

Well that's exactly the point, gun nuts are spewing out some rather ridiculous statements without anything to back it up. Until more comes out I'm inclined to believe the RCMP seized unsafely stored guns during their search and rescue efforts.

And I wasn't referring to everyone who disagrees with my opinion as a right wing gun nut, just the one ones spouting off on how this is some sinister effort the disarm the population or other such drivel.

Really? It seemed a logical conclusion from your words to me. I have been reading for a very long time. I am experienced with what words mean!

I agree that SOME people have been making unsubstantiated charges against the RCMP. Just because I pointed out that YOU DID EXACTLY THE SAME from the opposite viewpoint doesn't change that such charges are wrong and unfair. I pointed out that you also had made charges without backing.

Nothing wrong with "being inclined to believe" but that's a long way from having the authority to blame the whole controversy on "rghtwing gun nuts".

[Wild Bill]

WB, your own mention of 'no proof' speaks exactly to the point. None of that has stopped the rabid fervour, particularly those media outlets working overtime to fuel the flames of typically right-wing gunNutJobbery!

Please see my answer to Sheogorath.

I ventured no opinion on who was right and who was wrong. I merely pointed out that the poster was giving an unsubstantiated opinion as if it was gospel. It was as if he had seized an opportunity to castigate those he labels as "right wing".

I prefer to keep an open mind. The RCMP may or have not acted properly but their own recent history has proven that only a fool would believe them carte blanche.

At least this time they didn't taser someone 5 times simultaneously, killing them by heart failure.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Wild Bill

[Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Really? It seemed a logical conclusion from your words to me. I have been reading for a very long time. I am experienced with what words mean!

I agree that SOME people have been making unsubstantiated charges against the RCMP. Just because I pointed out that YOU DID EXACTLY THE SAME from the opposite viewpoint doesn't change that such charges are wrong and unfair. I pointed out that you also had made charges without backing.

Nothing wrong with "being inclined to believe" but that's a long way from having the authority to blame the whole controversy on "rghtwing gun nuts".

Perhaps I should have said strongly inclined. There is nothing what-so-ever, to suggest that the RCMP did anything unreasonable. In my opinion this is a non-issue invented by right wing gun nuts.

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps I should have said strongly inclined. There is nothing what-so-ever, to suggest that the RCMP did anything unreasonable. In my opinion this is a non-issue invented by right wing gun nuts.

"

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. Some of us need more!

Claiming the issue was invented by gun nuts is just that, an opinion. None of us at this point has any verifiable facts.

All you have to offer is your trust in the RCMP. Many other Canadians do not share that trust, because of grievous mistakes made by the RCMP themselves. Of course the Mounties have many fine officers but they don't seem to have the high average that they once had.

Some of their leaders have seemed a bit inept, too!

These are not opinions. They are mistakes in RCMP behavior that are public knowledge. A google will turn up pages of them.

Sadly, times appear to have changed. That is no logical reason to automatically call the RCMP wrong but it is sufficient to no longer trust them as implicitly.

After the tragedy at the Vancouver Airport, I am sure there are many folks in Poland who do not share your trust.

[cybercoma]

I do not think this was an effort to disarm the population. I think what we have here is an arrogant mindset which has never accepted that anyone other than police have a legitimate need to own any kind of firearm, and which simply assumes it has the authority to do anything it chooses to do. Some senior mountie decided that only the RCMP could be trusted to take care of these firearms, and simply gave the order to seize them. I doubt it ever occurred to him to wonder if he had that authority. From what I know about senior mounties your IQ has to be an additional ten points lower than average for every rank you rise.

And I doubt these were all sitting in the open. I think the mounties had to look for them, and I think they WERE looking for them.

There's a lot of ifs and assumptions in there. You might be totally right. I grant you that. It just seems like we're all pretty much in agreement in this thread, but disagree based only on our assumptions about the situation that haven't been confirmed.

[scribblet]

I object to being referred to as a 'gun nut', and all of this info is coming from media reports, which is substantiated.

The other thing of note is that these homes were already secure, as in being locked, which why the RCMP have had to use locksmiths. I just saw a report on the news that locksmiths have been billed for some 400 entries per day for a two day period. If true, that is some 800 entries into securely locked homes that were protected by deep water, and armed patrols 24/7 since the flood. What are the chances that roving gangs of looters were working in High River – not likely.

No. The RCMP in High River walked all over Section 8 of the Charter of Rights. They entered private homes without a warrant, in circumstances that did not warrant urgent need.

And again, define 'insecurely stored', did they have gun locks on etc. etc.

Firearms Lawyer Ed Burlew has stated that there is no judge in Canada that would have issued a warrant under these circumstances.

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/06/28/flood-evacuees-furious-as-rcmp-enter-locked-homes-to-confiscate-firearms/

“This is without precedent, this is unreasonable search and seizure,” said Ed Burlew, lawyer and firearms specialist in Ontario. “The entry was illegal, it’s against the charter, it was unreasonable search and seizure. There’s no judge that would uphold the evidence obtained through an illegal entry into a person’s home.”

[Bryan]

The gun nut remark is way off base. I don't own any guns, and I'm outraged.

I think people living is cities just don't understand that living in a small rural town at the foot of the mountains, sandwiched between two provincial parks is a situation where guns need to be readily available. When that coyote (or bear, or mountain lion...) is wandering into your yard while the kids are playing, you don't have time to run and unlock separate boxes and start assembling things.

[scribblet]

I just heard that the Alberta premier has banned the media from entering and reporting on High River !!

[Guest Derek L]

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?

The RCMP stated they seized illegally stored guns…….are you suggesting the RCMP is fibbing?

As to no charges, I stated my assumption earlier......it's a legal grey area.