RCMP Seized High River Firearms From Homes - break and enter

[Guest Derek L]

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.

And the origin of that “report” started on the Alberta Outdoorsman Forum, then grew like Wildfire on the various threads on Canadian GunNutz……….No more, or no less credible a source then “stories” that originate here:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=183406

I’ll pass judgement once I start hearing named sources with pictures reported in the (SUN) media.

[Guest Derek L]

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?

Negatively……..In that any infractions will lead to loss of licence and criminal charges………Hence on the major complainants with the Firearms Act is that it creates “paper criminals”...

[Guest Derek L]

....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....

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

Exactly……I‘m not holding my breath for those questions to be answered…but banging the conspiracy drum does little to address both those concerns and ways to address future incidents.

We don't need Alex Jones types representing us at the "trade show".....

[Spiderfish]

Negatively……..In that any infractions will lead to loss of licence and criminal charges………Hence on the major complainants with the Firearms Act is that it creates “paper criminals”...

You got it. I have a big problem making criminals out of victims in this disaster because they were trying to protect their property from flood damage. But I also don't think the police can play both sides of the fence, using the Criminal Code and Firearms Act as justification for seizing the guns, then saying to people that they can come down to the station and get their guns back with no repercussions.

It doesn't add up, either the guns were improperly stored and were seized as a result, or they weren't, in which case they should have just left them the hell alone.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Spiderfish

[guyser]

.. in which case they should have just left them the hell alone.

The RCMP should never have gone door to door for any reason. Worse , if they found a locked door then thats good enough

Afterall, the RCMP swore they had the entire town surrounded.....so were they protecting citizens from the RCMP? Sure looks like it.

[Spiderfish]

Exactly……I‘m not holding my breath for those questions to be answered…but banging the conspiracy drum does little to address both those concerns and ways to address future incidents.

We don't need Alex Jones types representing us at the "trade show".....

There are a few people using conspiracy, massive plot, etc. to describe this situation. I still believe this is not the case. If I were to guess what may have happened, I think it's possible that it may be a few overzealous individuals on the police force using loose or perhaps incorrect defiinitions of improper storage of firearms to justify removing the guns from houses. I believe there are likely a few firearms that were technically stored improperly, without trigger locks or bolts removed, but I also believe that there are many that were likely taken that shouldn't have been. This is speculation at this point, but if it's true, it will likely be challenged (as it should) so will probably come out.

I also believe that RCMP have discretion and the ablility to use good judgement, espectially in a very unique, and dynamic situation such as this. I think that if the front door of a house is open and an unsecure gun is sitting on the kitchen counter inside in plain view, then it should be secured by the police. But if the police have to break into the locked house and search for the firearms in closets or under beds, which they admitted to doing, perhaps good judgement would inlcude the possibility to leave things alone, rather than criminalize someone for simply trying to protect their property during a flood.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Guest Derek L]

You got it. I have a big problem making criminals out of victims in this disaster because they were trying to protect their property from flood damage. But I also don't think the police can play both sides of the fence, using the Criminal Code and Firearms Act as justification for seizing the guns, then saying to people that they can come down to the station and get their guns back with no repercussions.

It doesn't add up, either the guns were improperly stored and were seized as a result, or they weren't, in which case they should have just left them the hell alone.

You appear to be missing the point though……..The RCMP seized property under the auspices of public safety (Via the Firearms Act amongst others)…….To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been or will be charged…..The RCMP is returning the guns, and in a great many cases, the circumstances of the gun owners will dictate that they are continuing with “breaking the law” vis-à-vis safe storage and transportation requirements…….I will assume the RCMP isn’t going to lay charges here either.

What does this all mean? Precedent and a further demonstration on how poorly the Firearms Act was written, further compounding the calls within the firearms community to repeal the Firearms Act and replace it with common sense legislation. What I alluded to earlier, was that this flood also delayed the Conservative Policy Convention, a convention which would have seen numerous proposals put forth by the firearms community, including the repealing of the Canadian Firearms Act. All this large scale, public incident will do, coupled with many similar, but smaller scale, individual incidents is add further substantiated fuel to the political fire, well also galvanizing the base.

Now, if High River guns owners start getting their guns back, festooned in trigger and cable locks, well also being able to demonstrate that their guns were actually safely stored(as per the Firearms Act), this will only add further political traction……..Also, one can wait for the ensuing claims of damaged property by the hands of the RCMP…….Guns and Optics are not cheap……..Just wait until the first High River resident starts showing the media his or her damaged $2000 hunting rifle with $2000 scope……

Don’t misunderstand me, the RCMP with this one ham fisted incident, have done more for Canadian gun owners, then tens of thousands of dollars sent (by people like me) over the years to organizations like the CSSA and NFA……..As I said earlier, look at the (lack of) reaction by the Federal NDP and Liberals………Or the scorn shown towards both the Alberta Conservatives and Wild Rose Party for their misguided initial responses…..Even gun control advocates are keeping a zipped lip……Wendy Cukier has probably locked herself in a room somewhere shaking uncontrollably.

No, this very much so was a “win” for the firearms community…….many just don’t know it yet

[Spiderfish]

And the origin of that “report” started on the Alberta Outdoorsman Forum, then grew like Wildfire on the various threads on Canadian GunNutz……….No more, or no less credible a source then “stories” that originate here:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=183406

I’ll pass judgement once I start hearing named sources with pictures reported in the (SUN) media.

Actually Derek, RCMP Sgt. Patricia Neely was interviewed on Roy Green Show last weekend and did confirm during the interview that they did go through closets and under beds. The exchange went as follows:

Roy: what does readily visible mean?

Sgt. Neely: If a gun was on a shelf in a closet, its still going to be on the shelf in the closet. Does that mean that we didn't look under a bed or in a closet? We do know that people in cases of emergency and extreme stress do hide in places we wouldn't normally expect to find them. We were not searching for guns. We did not open a drawer. If a human did not fit somewhere, we did not look.

Roy: What would make a gun that's on a shelf in a closet any less of a challenge to an RCMP officer than one that's lying on a bed? If it's readily visible when you open up the closet door, is it any less of a concern than if the gun is lying on the bed?

Sgt. Neely: And again...is it readily visible? If it's on the top shelf, we're not searching the top shelf. If we open the closet door and there's a bunch of guns that are not secured, then obviously they may be gone. But if they're on a shelf or they're out of site, we're not searching for guns.

[Spiderfish]

No, this very much so was a “win” for the firearms community…….many just don’t know it yet

You are looking at the bigger picture here, and I applaud you for that. I'm looking and responding to the more immediate situation at hand. I can see why there are more than a few High River residents that are pissed off. They have every right to be. I think the poorly written Firearms Act and the discretionary interpretation and enforcement, combined with the legal, yet sleazy practice of hiding behind the Emergency Measures Act to gain unauthorized entrance to homes, then using the Firearms Act to grab the guns is sure to be challenged by residents. This is sure to have repercussions politically, I agree with you.

In the meantime, something smells rotten in High River, and it's not just the flood soaked couch festering in the sun.

[Guest Derek L]

Actually Derek, RCMP Sgt. Patricia Neely was interviewed on Roy Green Show last weekend and did confirm during the interview that they did go through closets and under beds. The exchange went as follows:

Roy: what does readily visible mean?

Sgt. Neely: If a gun was on a shelf in a closet, its still going to be on the shelf in the closet. Does that mean that we didn't look under a bed or in a closet? We do know that people in cases of emergency and extreme stress do hide in places we wouldn't normally expect to find them. We were not searching for guns. We did not open a drawer. If a human did not fit somewhere, we did not look.

Roy: What would make a gun that's on a shelf in a closet any less of a challenge to an RCMP officer than one that's lying on a bed? If it's readily visible when you open up the closet door, is it any less of a concern than if the gun is lying on the bed?

Sgt. Neely: And again...is it readily visible? If it's on the top shelf, we're not searching the top shelf. If we open the closet door and there's a bunch of guns that are not secured, then obviously they may be gone. But if they're on a shelf or they're out of site, we're not searching for guns.

In my response to scribblit, I was referring to a previous “story” (originated in my above link) of the RCMP seizing “securely stored” firearms from a “father and son”……..I assumed that was the one being referenced, since it’s been floated around all over the internet.

[Spiderfish]

In my response to scribblit, I was referring to a previous “story” (originated in my above link) of the RCMP seizing “securely stored” firearms from a “father and son”……..I assumed that was the one being referenced, since it’s been floated around all over the internet.

Scribblet was responding to a source request for verification to the comment that police were breaking into homes and rummaging through closets. The interview by Sgt. Neely confirms this.

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

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.

[Guest Derek L]

You are looking at the bigger picture here, and I applaud you for that. I'm looking and responding to the more immediate situation at hand. I can see why there are more than a few High River residents that are pissed off. They have every right to be. I think the poorly written Firearms Act and the discretionary interpretation and enforcement, combined with the legal, yet sleazy practice of hiding behind the Emergency Measures Act to gain unauthorized entrance to homes, then using the Firearms Act to grab the guns is sure to be challenged by residents. This is sure to have repercussions politically, I agree with you.

In the meantime, something smells rotten in High River, and it's not just the flood soaked couch festering in the sun.

In matters such as these, one has to think strategically………The other side does also……..The gun rights versus gun control chess game has been ongoing for decades and if one loses focus with trivial (in the big scheme) pitched “battles”, they only surrender the field to the other side………This is how the recent gun control battle in the United States was won and lost……

I would even suggest, that carrying on about guns seized and soon to be returned is a tactic even less palatable then dancing on the graves of dead school children.

Case in point, our little microcosm here on MLW…….Look at the initial responses of many in this thread. At the individual level, many of the posters that showed a varying level of negativity towards the RCMP’s actions, would also be the same ones calling for strict gun control or confiscation after a media charged mass shooting…….Others, generally indifference……..By the same token, within this tiny community of posters that contributed to this thread, the three known gun owners (myself being one of them), have contributed rather reserved responses.

Chew on that and then apply it to the largely apolitical indifferent public.

[Spiderfish]

In my response to scribblit, I was referring to a previous “story” (originated in my above link) of the RCMP seizing “securely stored” firearms from a “father and son”……..I assumed that was the one being referenced, since it’s been floated around all over the internet.

Not that it legitimizes this "story" any more, but Roy Green interviewed this fellow on the weekend as well. From his first hand account, the story as he describes is accurate.

[Spiderfish]

In matters such as these, one has to think strategically………The other side does also……..The gun rights versus gun control chess game has been ongoing for decades and if one loses focus with trivial (in the big scheme) pitched “battles”, they only surrender the field to the other side………This is how the recent gun control battle in the United States was won and lost……

Again, I can't disagree. But I offer that the people of High River likely aren't too interested in Chess at the moment.

I would even suggest, that carrying on about guns seized and soon to be returned is a tactic even less palatable then dancing on the graves of dead school children.

Maybe, unless the push back is coming from the perspective of property rights, not gun rights.

Case in point, our little microcosm here on MLW…….Look at the initial responses of many in this thread. At the individual level, many of the posters that showed a varying level of negativity towards the RCMP’s actions, would also be the same ones calling for strict gun control or confiscation after a media charged mass shooting…….Others, generally indifference……..By the same token, within this tiny community of posters that contributed to this thread, the three known gun owners (myself being one of them), have contributed rather reserved responses.

Which only enforces the possiblility that this is not sitting well with many people who are looking at this from the property rights perspective. To them, it has nothing to do with gun control, only violation of personal property. I come at it from several angles, I can see the discomfort people have with the strategy by the police of using a disaster and search for victims as an opportunity to poke around and confiscate personal property that they deem unsafe. As a person who owns a few guns myself, I can also put myself in the position of the people affected by this and empahize with their situation and the feeling of violation they must feel, being victimized first by the river, then by the people who are supposed to be helping them.

[Guest Derek L]

Again, I can't disagree. But I offer that the people of High River likely aren't too interested in Chess at the moment.

Maybe, unless the push back is coming from the perspective of property rights, not gun rights.

Which only enforces the possiblility that this is not sitting well with many people who are looking at this from the property rights perspective. To them, it has nothing to do with gun control, only violation of personal property. I come at it from several angles, I can see the discomfort people have with the strategy by the police of using a disaster and search for victims as an opportunity to poke around and confiscate personal property that they deem unsafe. As a person who owns a few guns myself, I can also put myself in the position of the people affected by this and empahize with their situation and the feeling of violation they must feel, being victimized first by the river, then by the people who are supposed to be helping them.

Sorry for the quick response, but just about to go sit down for dinner………..Simply put, guns are property……..Canadians right to property was purposely not included into the Charter……both avenues are intertwined, as is the individuals perceived right in Canada not to be encroached upon………

I understand a discussion on property rights is probably more in-depth and would probably warrant it’s own thread………..Basically it comes down to what our society believes Government’s true role is……Are we to serve it, or is it to serve us…….The incident in High River is ultimately the Canadian publics fault, not that of the RCMP, fore we (the Canadian public) have allowed situations like this to accumulate.

[waldo]

Scribblet was responding to a source request for verification to the comment that police were breaking into homes and rummaging through closets. The interview by Sgt. Neely confirms this.

nonsense! You're reading what you want into that RCMP spokesperson interview. Read the quotes again... your own provided quotes! There was no "rummaging through closets"! As stated: "We do know that people in cases of emergency and extreme stress do hide in places we wouldn't normally expect to find them. We were not searching for guns. We did not open a drawer. If a human did not fit somewhere, we did not look"

[Spiderfish]

..." If it's on the top shelf, we're not searching the top shelf. If we open the closet door and there's a bunch of guns that are not secured, then obviously they may be gone. But if they're on a shelf or they're out of site, we're not searching for guns."

I can see how it could be open to interpretation.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Wild Bill]

Sorry for the quick response, but just about to go sit down for dinner………..Simply put, guns are property……..Canadians right to property was purposely not included into the Charter……both avenues are intertwined, as is the individuals perceived right in Canada not to be encroached upon………

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.

[waldo]

The ommission of property rights in our Charter will be a contentious issue FOREVER!

No matter what the champions of the left may desire.

WB, champions of the left??? Not sure here - are you suggesting the "left" championed the absence of property rights within the Charter? The history I read suggests most of the opposition to including property rights came from the provinces... but yes, some also from women's groups, some from native groups, some from unions, some from environmental groups, etc.

since your guy Harper has the wheel, shouldn't you be directing your concerns that way? Why haven't Harper Conservatives chosen to champion this, apparently, so "egregious" oversight... and looked for the remedy you clearly desire?

[Wild Bill]

WB, champions of the left??? Not sure here - are you suggesting the "left" championed the absence of property rights within the Charter? The history I read suggests most of the opposition to including property rights came from the provinces... but yes, some also from women's groups, some from native groups, some from unions, some from environmental groups, etc.

since your guy Harper has the wheel, shouldn't you be directing your concerns that way? Why haven't Harper Conservatives chosen to champion this, apparently, so "egregious" oversight... and looked for the remedy you clearly desire?

Well Waldo, you have your sources and I have mine.

What I have read said that the move was made under time pressure to get all parties on side. Omitting the right to property was the deal maker to get support from Ed Broadbent.

I have read this repeatedly over the years. Perhaps you will disagree.

However, don't expect me to ransack my library researching the point for you. I have better things to do and besides, you wouldn't accept it anyway.

I would suggest that the point s moot. It's not what you or I believe happened to frame our Charter that's important. Rather, we have large numbers of our citizens who feel a certain way. This of course has great influence upon our politics and any poltician who ignores it may get a comeuppance sooner or later at the polls.

As for Harper being "my guy", those are your words, not mine! I lost any confidence in Harper when he allowed the power workers of the old PC party to have control over policy with the new CPC, in effect making it a clone of the Mulroney party that I had left decades ago.

Why you persist in referring to me as a Harper conservative is beyond me. Perhaps you label anyone not on side with YOUR politics as such, I dunno.

Or maybe its just mental laziness on your part.

If you really need to label me you might try "Classic Liberal". If you look for the dictionary definition of the term you will quickly understand why I do not have a distinct choice for my ballot, just "whoever smells the least".

Still, as a Canadian I am in good company and I suppose I have no right to complain.

[waldo]

I would suggest that the point s moot. It's not what you or I believe happened to frame our Charter that's important. Rather, we have large numbers of our citizens who feel a certain way. This of course has great influence upon our politics and any poltician who ignores it may get a comeuppance sooner or later at the polls.

you brought up the attribution point... you attached accountability to the left for the absence of property rights in the Charter. When I bring reality to that claim, you now want to label it "a moot point"! Nice.

As for Harper being "my guy", those are your words, not mine! I lost any confidence in Harper when he allowed the power workers of the old PC party to have control over policy with the new CPC, in effect making it a clone of the Mulroney party that I had left decades ago.

Why you persist in referring to me as a Harper conservative is beyond me. Perhaps you label anyone not on side with YOUR politics as such, I dunno.

Or maybe its just mental laziness on your part.

If you really need to label me you might try "Classic Liberal". If you look for the dictionary definition of the term you will quickly understand why I do not have a distinct choice for my ballot, just "whoever smells the least".

Still, as a Canadian I am in good company and I suppose I have no right to complain.

WB, I never tire of your 'Classic liberal' claim... I just note that your positions seem to perpetually line up with Harper Conservatives. When do repeat coincidences take on another meaning?

[guyser]

Good to see you back WB

What I have read said that the move was made under time pressure to get all parties on side. Omitting the right to property was the deal maker to get support from Ed Broadbent.

I have read this repeatedly over the years. Perhaps you will disagree.

Missing from this , while true, is the fact that the PC's proposed an amendment, a non confidence one .This brought the process to a halt and such be the rules of Parliament, they could not reintroduce it in that session.

All ten provinces, particularly Manitoba and PEI wer against any prop rights enshrined.

Most were concerned because no determination of prop rights had been discussed. What are they , or could they be, apart from land it includes benefits, welfare, native land claims and so on. Quite the can of worms.

[Wild Bill]

you brought up the attribution point... you attached accountability to the left for the absence of property rights in the Charter. When I bring reality to that claim, you now want to label it "a moot point"! Nice.

WB, I never tire of your 'Classic liberal' claim... I just note that your positions seem to perpetually line up with Harper Conservatives. When do repeat coincidences take on another meaning?

Well, since Ed Broadbent was the leader of the party of the left at the time, I would think my claim had at least some validity.

As for my positions always lining up with those of Harper Conservatives, that is your opinion alone. I would say that because so rarely can I agree with positions taken by the LIberals and the NDP I am left with those of the CPC by default.

Believe me, when I do agree with Harper and his bunch I seldom do it with any enthusiasm. I lost that when Stockwell Day nearly destroyed the Reform Movement with his loopy evangelical church brand of politics. Then when the same old bunch that ran the PC party got control of the new CPC, I was effectively left with the least smelly skunk in the woods.

If you want to claim that i actually LIKE the smell then there's nothing for us to talk about.

[Wild Bill]

Good to see you back WB

Missing from this , while true, is the fact that the PC's proposed an amendment, a non confidence one .This brought the process to a halt and such be the rules of Parliament, they could not reintroduce it in that session.

All ten provinces, particularly Manitoba and PEI wer against any prop rights enshrined.

Most were concerned because no determination of prop rights had been discussed. What are they , or could they be, apart from land it includes benefits, welfare, native land claims and so on. Quite the can of worms.

Thanks, Guyser2! Hope to stick around. I have been reading for a while and in general people seem to be more mature and polite than when I left.

And thanks for the info about the other provinces not being on board. I did not know that! The argument that property rights would have needed more debate than there was time left makes sense.

Still, like several things about our Charter and Constitution, they have not always been universally supported by the citizenry at large. Sooner or later they must be addressed or negative things might happen. The fact that our amending formula is such that in the real world is not likely to ever happen was a big mistake. Not only did it make the arrogant assumption that the Charter and Constitution were perfect from their inception but also times change and people change with them. The American example is admirable in that it allows more power to the will of the people.

I don't think I am the only Canadian who thinks that what Trudeau and the others did at the time was more of a "top-down" approach.

The less of populism in such endeavours the less pride citizens can take when they are enacted.

[waldo]

And thanks for the info about the other provinces not being on board. I did not know that!

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!