rcmp confiscate guns from evacuated community

[skypuppy 1]

this is exactly what happened in katrina. After residents were ordered to leave town due to floods, RCMP broke into homes to search for weapons and confiscated them.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Hell+Residents+angry+RCMP+sieze+guns+from+High+River+homes/8588851/story.html

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[CanuckInUSA 0]

The situation in High River is getting desperate. It's been a week now since the water first came and most of the town is still under water. The residents feel helpless, but how can they be let back into their homes when the town is still flooded. There are too many water borne diseases to allow the people back into their homes. I know someone from High River (a fellow I met from the local Kart Racing Club) and it's just horrible what he and his family must be going through. It wasn't just his home that was flooded, it is also his business.

Now the seizure of these firearms is another can of worms. There are people who could be motivated to steal firearms from the vacated homes, but they had to know which homes had them and where to look. So on one hand you can see why the RCMP does not want the firearms to be stolen. But on the other hand, how can you trust the RCMP to give the firearms back given their history.

Things are challenging in Calgary post flood, but Calgary is a walk in the park compared to High River.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skypuppy 1]

I'm sure it took the rcmp more man-hours to break into every home and every gun safe to confiscate these weapons then it would to simply have established a patrol to ensure looters were not allowed...

This is a blatant fishing expedition looking for guns and hoping not to return them. The brass are angry at the repeal of the long gun registry, and this is way of expressing it.

Class action lawsuit.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[CanuckInUSA 0]

As I said there are too many water borne diseases now to just let everyone return to their homes all at once. But what the authorities could have done was escort each family one-by-one to inspect their homes and possibly retrieve certain small possessions that had not been damaged by the flood waters. The people of High River have a right to feel pissed off about how they have been handled in the crisis.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[aphid 0]

Before jumping on the apoplectic bandwagon about the dastardly RCMP, I think I'll just wait to see how it actually shakes out...

“We have seized a large quantity of firearms simply because they were left by residents in their places,” said Topham. The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership, Topham added."

source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/RCMP+seized+High+River+firearms+from+homes+control/8588851/story.html

[Channman 2]

aphid

Before jumping on the apoplectic bandwagon about the dastardly RCMP, I think I'll just wait to see how it actually shakes out...

“We have seized a large quantity of firearms simply because they were left by residents in their places,” said Topham. The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership, Topham added."

source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/RCMP+seized+High+River+firearms+from+homes+control/8588851/story.html

I'll call it for what it is "Bull Shit", "Proof of Ownership"...how long do you think it will take an owner of a gun that was handed down to them from a Grand Parent, or parent to show proof of ownership. Did the police inventory each weapon and address from which it was confiscated? Many of the papers, bill of sale could very well be destroyed in the flood waters. For those smart enough to have listed them on the Homeowners insurance with photographs maybe they will have an opportunity to retrieve their weapon.

This was done to simply confiscate as many firearms as possible. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if the police required fingerprints and DNA as additional requirements. That's my .02 cents.

[muff528 3]

Why do they need "proof of ownership"? Doesn't the Canadian gov't already have a list of all firearms and their owners? (at least the ones that were in private possession before 2012)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

"Proof of Ownership"...how long do you think it will take an owner of a gun that was handed down to them from a Grand Parent, or parent to show proof of ownership. Did the police inventory each weapon and address from which it was confiscated? Many of the papers, bill of sale could very well be destroyed in the flood waters. For those smart enough to have listed them on the Homeowners insurance with photographs maybe they will have an opportunity to retrieve their weapon.

I have to agree that this was my immediate thought, too, when I read the "proof of ownership" quote. We'll wait and see how it shakes out, as Aphid suggests; but in the meantime it does ping my radar.

[wolfriverjoe 1,368]

Just out of curiosity, did they "secure" any other valuables?
Did they, for example, take any jewelry for "safekeeping"?
Coin collections?
Electronics?

Or just guns?

And what degree of "proof" of ownership do they require?
Sales receipt?
Or just documentation of the serial number?

And what if that proof was destroyed in the flood?
And what will happen to all the guns that the owners can't prove ownership of?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Channman 2]

wolfriverjoe

Just out of curiosity, did they "secure" any other valuables?
Did they, for example, take any jewelry for "safekeeping"?
Coin collections?
Electronics?

Or just guns?

And what degree of "proof" of ownership do they require?
Sales receipt?
Or just documentation of the serial number?

And what if that proof was destroyed in the flood?
And what will happen to all the guns that the owners can't prove ownership of?

Singing to the Choir...however you statement on other valuables is indeed interesting. I don't think they considered the looting of expensive jewelry, coins, or Hazardous Chemicals stored in or around one's property as a major concern.

The confiscation of property deemed to be evil however is the primary reason for entering the home and pillaging through belongings to find such contraband. The ability to regain ownership will be costly and timely as designed.

[aphid 0]

In 2011, the communities of Slave Lake and Athabasca were evacuated because of horrific firestorms. The RCMP secured weapons as well from various homes back then.

There was no hue and cry. And a friend of mine indicated he had his returned without difficulty after the month-long crisis ended.

Same province. Same police force. Same laws.

You may note the subtle difference between describing the police action as "securing" as opposed to "seizing". I suppose that my word doesn't push the emotional hot-buttons though.

Hence, I am still comfortable waiting to see how this plays out.

[popsjumper 2]

Did he have to provide 'proof of ownership'?

If so, what did he provide and what else would have been acceptable for 'proof'?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skypuppy 1]

in 2011 tho, we still had the long gun registry. Now those records have been destroyed, it remains to be seen
a) what proof of ownership is required?, and
b) will the rcmp and the provincial firearms officer use this opportunity to once again record makes, serial numbers, etc. and start a registry
c)what condition will the guns be in when they are returned. In New Orleans, many were no longer useable due to storage conditions by the time they were returned.(and many weren't returned at all).

I still say police have no right to enter a locked home without permission of the owner.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

most media up here seem to have picked up the story now.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/search-and-seizure/2516263738001

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I still say police have no right to enter a locked home without permission of the owner.

The police were tasked with the role of keeping looters out of resident's homes while the residents were displaced and the police turned out "to be" the looters. If the police do indeed return every firearm once this is over then maybe we can turn a blind eye. But with the record the RCMP have, I am not holding my breath. The people of High River have a lot to be frustrated with concerning how they have been treated by the authorities, and this only adds to the insults.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[wayneflorida 0]

How many dogs did they shoot along with collecting weapons? Maybe it is just a US thing.

Just shoot the looters. Less logistics and paper work.

[Andy9o8 0]

wayneflorida

How many dogs did they shoot along with collecting weapons? Maybe it is just a US thing.

"That ole dawg cain't hunt" and "He ain't worth shootin' on a cold night" are definitely not Canadian sayings.

[champu 1]

skypuppy

I'm sure it took the rcmp more man-hours to break into every home and every gun safe to confiscate these weapons...

I might have missed it, but where did you read that they actually breached gun safes? Or is that just understood because everyone in Canada keeps unattended firearms in safes? (as is good practice)

Breaking into homes to collect firearms is bad but breaking into safes and taking just firearms while leaving any other valuables now unsecured is idiotic too.

[skypuppy 1]

breaking into safes is speculation, which in the absence of rcmp confirmation the media are doing -- however, as in the video clip, the cops have admitted they have collected HUNDREDS of firearms. To imagine that HUNDREDS of firearms were lying around in the open on dining room tables, etc. is a bit of a stretch.

In canada it is legal to store guns in a safe OR with a trigger lock OR without the bolt installed. Originally the police stated the guns were not properly stored - however the canadian police have a reputation of considering that storage in a safe is the only legal storage, where the actual statute states unequivocably that storage with a trigger lock or without the bolt accessible is also legal.

Considering they haven't shown video footage of actually collecting the guns, just a short clip of generally searching houses, it seems they must have done relatively thorough searches including entering closets, looking under beds, etc (this after they had kicked down the front doors). This also leads to speculation that the homes they illegally entered had to be on a database (like the supposedly now deleted by statute long gun registry) to centre in on houses that they knew would have guns in them.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

this after they had kicked down the front doors

They didn't actually kick down the doors. They went door to door with locksmiths. But they did enter and search every home in High River. The police are supposed to be protecting the homes from looters, except that the police themselves became the looters.

BTW about 1000 High River families are being allowed to return to their homes today, but it will be weeks if not months before the rest are allowed to return. Much of the town is still under water. As far as Calgary is concerned, something like 10,000 people have still not been allowed to return to their homes and upwards of 100+ houses will need to be demolished. But at least the derailed train cars on the Bonnybrook Bridge were safely removed with none of the contents of these rail cars leaking into the Bow River though for a while there on Wednesday raw sewage was being pumped into the Bow. This raw sewage didn't effect me though, I am upstream of all this.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skypuppy 1]

I've seen pictures in the media of them breaking down doors.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[tkhayes 150]

In 1989, and while that was a long long time ago, the RCMP offered to take my uncle's guns into possession and safe-keeping after he died. There were some 200 pieces total, and as it ended up, that's exactly what they did. They kept them all safe until the auction was held and we got rid of all of them.

They charged us nothing for the transport, the storage or otherwise. This was pre gun-registry, but I too will wait and see what pans out of this. It sounds like bullshit on the surface, but they may very well simply return everything.

[aphid 0]

Now that some of the heated rhetoric and righteous indignation has subsided, the story continues:

"In a statement issued last week, the RCMP said officers found that some gun owners had laid out their weapons in plain view as they presumably moved valuable possessions to higher ground. The weapons were tagged for return to their owners."

"... the force said the weapons could be reclaimed with the presentation of a possession acquisition licence." *

"Alberta Premier Alison Redford... said the RCMP were simply securing weapons, rather than 'leaving them sitting on fireplace mantles in a town that was evacuated.'"

And finally, this: "The head of the RCMP is asking for an investigation into the seizure of firearms from homes evacuated during flooding in Alberta"

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/05/rcmp-alberta-gun-seizures-investigation_n_3551584.html

* To legally possess, acquire, sell, transport, or transfer a firearm (of any kind) in Canada, this document is required. I don't own any firearms, yet I have one of these licenses/cards. It's really not a big deal.

So, I'll still wait and see how this shakes out.

[skypuppy 1]

aphid

Now that some of the heated rhetoric and righteous indignation has subsided, the story continues:

"In a statement issued last week, the RCMP said officers found that some gun owners had laid out their weapons in plain view as they presumably moved valuable possessions to higher ground. The weapons were tagged for return to their owners."

"... the force said the weapons could be reclaimed with the presentation of a possession acquisition licence." *

"Alberta Premier Alison Redford... said the RCMP were simply securing weapons, rather than 'leaving them sitting on fireplace mantles in a town that was evacuated.'"

And finally, this: "The head of the RCMP is asking for an investigation into the seizure of firearms from homes evacuated during flooding in Alberta"

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/05/rcmp-alberta-gun-seizures-investigation_n_3551584.html

* To legally possess, acquire, sell, transport, or transfer a firearm (of any kind) in Canada, this document is required. I don't own any firearms, yet I have one of these licenses/cards. It's really not a big deal.

So, I'll still wait and see how this shakes out.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree. As bad as the seizures were, probably the worst thing about this is the unwarranted searches.

It's my understanding that cdn law defines buildings differently from dwellings. A building is usually a workplace where people have no real expectation of privacy, while a DWELLING is classified as a residence where the inhabitant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

My understanding is that even under the Emergency Management Act, police can only enter a DWELLING without a warrant or permission under the 'hot pursuit' clause. That means if they're following a law breaker and see him enter the home - or if they know someone is inside the home breaking the law - or if, for example they KNOW there IS SOMEONE INSIDE in need of medical attention, etc. UNLESS MY UNDERSTANDING IS WRONG POLICE HAD NO CAUSE TO ENTER THOSE DWELLINGS, LET ALONE SEARCH AND SEIZE GUNS.

There was one homeowner on the news whose house wasn't even flooded. When he returned THE ONLY DAMAGE TO HIS HOUSE had been caused by police breaking in. In fact, he was alerted to his front door being broken by a pet rescue company that went to his house looking for (and finding) his cat (8 days after evacuation), who fed him and tried to fix the door. So the police entering these DWELLINGS (to look for people or PETS left behind, according to their much-vaunted pressers) had not bothered with the cat. They had however, broken into a locked closet, locating the gun safe. They didn't take those guns, however they left the broken closet door open and the front door open, so anyone walking in would immediately have seen the safe and taken the whole thing if they wanted. They left mucky footprints all over the carpet leading straight to the gun closet.

So the home wasn't flooded but police wrecked the door, didn't help his cat, wrecked the closet door and left his gun safe exposed, all without permission. In fact, many many homes had their doors left unlockable after police entered, and many guns were taken from closets, not from the 'open'.

It is the unwarranted searches as well as the seizures that are the problem.

And again, cops are requiring things to get the guns back. Nothing should be required. If people got those guns before requirements for PAL, they should have been grand-fathered. Maybe they don't use the guns, they keep them for sentimental value? It's still their property.

They rcmp should be disciplined for these actions.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

and now it seems these homes were searched, not once, but 3 times each. from sun news:

Wildrose leader Danielle Smith, MLA for the High River area and a High River resident, says the police “aggravated an already tense and stressful situation.”

“These sorts of actions damage the trust residents have for their leaders and will make future disaster situations more difficult to manage effectively.”

Smith says the Mounties “have a lot to answer for.”

She is gathering her own information from her High River constituents and she wants to know how many guns were secured at the request of gun owners and how many were not.

It is her understanding houses were entered to look for people and then for building inspections and then a third time “just to get the guns.”

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone