RCMP Seized High River Firearms From Homes - break and enter

[waldo]

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.

it's 37km south of Calgary... another so-called 'bedroom community', with many people commuting to work in Calgary. You're really not far enough west to worry all that much about bears/mountain lions. Towns farther west on Highway 22, of course... but nice try anyways!

[waldo]

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

citation request

[Guest Derek L]

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.

And how would one show proof of ownership of a 100 year old gun?

It’s quite obvious, as the RCMP stated, they catalogued what guns they took from what address………As I said earlier, one goes to the local detachment with their ID and PAL/RPAL…….really simple concept.

[Guest Derek L]

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 asked what law.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Reread the section:

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

So how does said inspector, from outside a home, know if the occupants are “normal people with a rifle or two”? Or if they’re in possession of a prohibited device?

Also, care to define collection?

[Guest Derek L]

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

What a trip eh?

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!

Don’t worry, the word will eventually spread from the Mountain top to the firearms community

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!

Vic, the child porn crusader, will be retiring this summer………He’s as about as popular within the CPC Grassroots and the Firearms community as Hitler……..

What has obviously slipped past many and I find rather ironic is that Conservative policy convention was also delayed by the same flood that burdend gun owners of High River……….In a sense, allowing for further changes to policy proposals put forth by the local riding associations

For example, there is this one:

http://www.cpcconvention.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Convention-2013-POLICY-PRIORITY-RESOLUTIONS-1-82-EN-FINAL-VERSION-May-17-2013-3.pdf

EDA – Cambridge

Section M - 91 - Firearms (MODIFICATION)

Amended:

A Conservative Government will repeal Canada’s costly long gun registry legislation and

work with the provinces and territories on cost-effective gun control programs designed

to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law- abiding

Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly. Measures will include: mandatory

minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms; strict monitoring of high-risk

individuals; increased enforcement and prosecution of smuggling; safe storage

provisions; firearms safety training; a certification screening system for all those wishing

to acquire firearms legally; and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets.

The current Firearms Act which makes ownership illegal except under specific

conditions of permission shall be rescinded and replaced with an Act that;

Recognizes the right to own firearms unless that right is removed through due

process of law on an individual basis, and; Returns the “prohibited classed

firearms” to restricted or non-restricted classes, and; Recognizes the license

and/or certificate of acquisition as the authorization to transport for each class

named on it, and ; That licensing and/or certification shall be valid for lifetime

unless removed through due process, and; A Conservative Government will

initiate a review of the various mental health acts and privacy laws and change

them to to ensure that applicable health care practitioners are given the means to

advise mental health concerns (such as, but not limited to, suicidal or homicidal

behavior or such indicated behavior) to the appropriate Police for use in

investigating or reviewing an individual currently holding or wishing to acquire

firearms, provided in the event this information is used to deny or revoke an

individual, they can appeal any adverse decision to a Court for adjudication.

I’m sure you’ve heard the term cause and effect right? At times though, one needs effects for cause…..and change.

Or as Wolfman Jack once put it:

If you’ve got the curves, I’ve got the angles

Can yeah dig it?

Edited June 30, 2013 by Derek L

[Sheogorath_The_Mad]

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.

Outraged at what? There's been nothing to suggest anything wrong was done. Everything on this story seems to be driven by the unsubstantiated knee-jerk opinion that the RCMP seized guns because they don't like citizens owning them.

I live in BC, in close proximity to cougars, bears, and coyotes, so I can tell you that your vastly overestimating the risk animals pose.

[Spiderfish]

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.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Spiderfish

[jacee]

Outraged at what? There's been nothing to suggest anything wrong was done. Everything on this story seems to be driven by the unsubstantiated knee-jerk opinion that the RCMP seized guns because they don't like citizens owning them.

I live in BC, in close proximity to cougars, bears, and coyotes, so I can tell you that your vastly overestimating the risk animals pose.

Point being, people don't have to justify why they own guns.

Also, if people didn't have to prove ownership to police when they bought the guns, then they don't have to prove ownership to have the guns returned to the address police took them from.

Police should not be using this as an excuse for confiscating guns.

They had no warrants, no permission to enter so nothing seized can be used for evidence of anything.

[Guest Derek L]

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

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/30/alberta-rcmp-to-start-returning-guns-seized-from-evacuated-homes-in-flood-ravaged-high-river/

Mounties in Alberta announced Sunday that they’ll begin returning some of the guns they seized during searches of evacuated homes in this flood ravaged town.

An RCMP news release says that owners of guns that were seized should call police, and that an officer will call them back to make arrangements to have the weapons picked up.

Just that easy?

Any guns were removed from homes because they were not properly stored, said Staff Sgt. Brian Jones, who added that no charges are planned.

No charges planned?

Jones said owners of guns that were seized can let RCMP hang onto their firearms if they can’t return to their homes, yet. He said it’s also OK if they want to store the guns with someone else.

Does this include restricted or 12.x class firearms too? Will the RCMP issue STATT's for those guns? In essence, contriving the poorly written Firearms Act?

In a statement Friday, the RCMP said officers found that many gun owners had actually laid out their guns in plain view in order to move valuable possessions to higher ground in their homes.

I'll give my 17 year old credit........

[Guest Derek L]

Point being, people don't have to justify why they own guns.

Actually when applying for a non-restricted and/or restricted license they do...

Also, if people didn't have to prove ownership to police when they bought the guns, then they don't have to prove ownership to have the guns returned to the address police took them from.

Yes and no, now that the long gun registry is gone, for non-restricted guns we don’t, but that is still required for both the restricted and 12.x classes of firearms.

[Guest Derek L]

One more thing I'd thought I'd add, since the RCMP seized approximately 200 firearms from the citizens of High River under the auspices of public safety:

http://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/RCMP-ATI-Firearms-Stolen-from-Police2.pdf

RCMP ACCESS TO INFORMATION RESPONSE

428 FIREARMS LOST BY AND STOLEN FROM THE POLICE

AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES

RCMP ATI RESPONSE DATED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 RCMP FILE #: GA-3951-3-04075/11

RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 21, 2011

WORDING OF ORIGINAL ATI REQUEST SUBMITTED TO RCMP (July 10, 2011):

Please provide the most recent copies of existing reports that show the total number and types

of firearms (prohibited, restricted, non-restricted) that were:

(1) lost by, missing and stolen from the RCMP;

(2) lost by, missing and stolen from other police forces;

(3) lost by, missing and stolen from other public service agencies; and

(4) lost by, missing and stolen from the military.

FIREARMS LOST BY AND STOLEN FROM THE RCMP = 32

Shotgun = 9

Rifle = 4

Handgun = 18

Other = 1

FIREARMS LOST BY AND STOLEN STOLEN FROM OTHER POLICE SERVICES = 316

CN Police – Handgun = Information blacked out

RNC – Handgun = Information blacked out

OPP – Rifle = Information blacked out

OPP – Rifle = Information blacked out

OPP – Handgun = Information blacked out

Surete du Quebec – Handgun = Information blacked out

Aboriginal Police – Rifle = 11

Aboriginal Police – Shotgun = 2

Aboriginal Police – Handgun = 3

Municipal – Shotgun = 3

Municipal – Handgun = 267

Maybe we should take away the police’s guns for public safety reasons too…….Nearly 430 firearms lost or stolen…….of course these are also semi-auto pistols, combat/riot shotguns and semi auto/automatic “assault” rifles, all with their respected high capacity mags in place I should think………

Edited July 1, 2013 by Derek L

[Bryan]

Just that easy?

Is it? If you took it out of my house, you bring it back.

[Guest Derek L]

Is it? If you took it out of my house, you bring it back.

Is that before or after they issue an apology?

[Bryan]

Is that before or after they issue an apology?

During. The one who took it should personally bring it back, explain to me how they understand what they did was wrong, and ask for my forgiveness

[Guest Derek L]

During. The one who took it should personally bring it back, explain to me how they understand what they did was wrong, and ask for my forgiveness

Good luck with that........you know what they say about wishing in one hand....

[Bryan]

Good luck with that........you know what they say about wishing in one hand....

Oh, I know they won't. The RCMP doesn't have anywhere near that level of integrity.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh, I know they won't. The RCMP doesn't have anywhere near that level of integrity.

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

Normally, unsafe storage and transportation of restricted firearms outside of the conditions set within a RPAL holders Authorization to Transport are both criminal charges……..So 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? I’d ask this to the RCMP since they don’t appear to mind interpreting and making up as they go along laws, and apparently, such questions would be too tough to put towards elected Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament.

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?

Ahoy……political mines ahead……….

Edited July 1, 2013 by Derek L

[PIK]

So you believe unsafe (illegally) stored guns should just be left there?

They should be charging these people and not giving them back.

The only people that should charged is the RCMP itself. The real keystone cops. Chretien had 13 years to clean it up ,but like usual he ignored it and harper has to deal with it. What did the man do for 13 years.

Edited July 2, 2013 by PIK

[Spiderfish]

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.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Spiderfish

[The_Squid]

The only people that should charged is the RCMP itself. The real keystone cops. Chretien had 13 years to clean it up ,but like usual he ignored it and harper has to deal with it. What did the man do for 13 years.

You are blaming Jean Chretien for the RCMP taking unsafely stored weapons in 2013?

LOL

[PIK]

You are blaming Jean Chretien for the RCMP taking unsafely stored weapons in 2013?

LOL

I am blaming chretien for not doing anything for 13 years . The problems with the senate, the forces,the keystone cops, isatopes ect ect....were all there when he was and he did nothing.

[Spiderfish]

You are blaming Jean Chretien for the RCMP taking unsafely stored weapons in 2013?

LOL

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.

[GostHacked]

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.

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

[guyser]

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

Like truth and accountability ?

yup