rcmp confiscate guns from evacuated community

[aphid 0]

skypuppy

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.

To cite just one example where this supposition is incorrect, police may indeed enter without warrant or permission to check the homes electrical system. (I'm sure there are likely additional situations, but I'm not a lawyer and don't want to be)

"A search may be legal for some purposes and illegal for other purposes. For example, authorities can search a house to determine whether it complies with electrical safety requirements. The prerequisites for a regulatory safety search are low. Preauthorization by a judicial official is not required."
source: http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/china_ccprcp/files/Presentations%20and%20Publications/21%20Search%20and%20Seizure_English.pdf

Quote

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.”

It doesn't completely surprise me that a defeated political candidate might seek to gain some traction from this issue.

Quote

It is her understanding houses were entered to look for people

Which I understand is legal and defensible under the terms of our Canadian Charter and further supported by the Emergency Management Act.

Quote

and then for building inspections

Also to my understanding, this is legal and defensible within the Canadian Charter.

Quote

and then a third time “just to get the guns.”

So, they kick a door for the first or second legal search, and during those look-arounds they see unsecured firearms, I could contend that they are also legally allowed to secure them for later return to the owners.

Quote

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.

"PALs were introduced in Canada in 1995 as part of Bill C-68 as a replacement for the FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) system. Whereas the FAC was only required to acquire a firearm, a PAL is required to both acquire and possess firearms and to acquire ammunition."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence#History

To my knowledge, there has never been a grandfather exclusion for owning/possessing weapons prior to 1995. If you have evidence/information to the contrary, that would substantiate your position.

Seriously Rob, I'm not blindly defending the actions by the RCMP as I am still waiting to see how this plays out. By the same token, I don't share the paranoia that the RCMP are a just an evil nefarious lot whose sole mission is to take everybody's guns in Canada.

You competing at National's this year?

John

[skypuppy 1]

No, not going to the nationals. Did make it to burnaby to say hello to Vic Borghese (and a few others, incidentally, like Floyd Martineau and Betty) and talk about old times Saturday. He will be going to Nationals.

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]

aphid

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.”

Quote

It doesn't completely surprise me that a defeated political candidate might seek to gain some traction from this issue.

How is Danielle Smith a defeated political candidate? Last time I checked, Ms Smith won her MLA seat to represent the constituents of Highwood (which includes the town of High River). Not only does Ms Smith represent the town in the Provincial legislature, but she lives there and you think she should remain silent on the issue?

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

[aphid 0]

CanuckInUSA

How is Danielle Smith a defeated political candidate? Last time I checked, Ms Smith won her MLA seat to represent the constituents of Highwood (which includes the town of High River).

I was alluding that contrary to leading the polls immediately prior, (significantly IIRC, but I'm receptive to correction), to the most recent 2012 provincial election, her greater failure to win the position of provincial Premier by leading her party to victory, and now seated as the leader of the official opposition. Perhaps defeated was too broad a description, she was just the unwinner.

Quote

Not only does Ms Smith represent the town in the Provincial legislature, but she lives there and you think she should remain silent on the issue?

Certainly she should be active in an inquiry, presuming she would undertake it without partisan preconceptions. I would expect no less from the mayor of the town as well as the head of the Provincial Preparedness department. The same said public inquiry the RCMP have already called for? Or would you prefer an additional inquiry?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Why would I be asking for an additional inquiry? We waste enough money with government BS. I don't agree with everything politicians say. I was just correcting your statement that Danielle Smith was a failed politician. The fact that the Wildrose Party failed to win the last election has little to do with the seizure of these firearms, so there is no point going into the details of why the Progressive Party of Alberta continued their 40+ year dynasty ... but those of us who actually live here, know what happened and only time will tell the fates of the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Party of Alberta.

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

[aphid 0]

CanuckInUSA

but those of us who actually live here, know what happened...

No offense meant, but with multiple posts in this thread including the OP, from people in ON, BC and the USA, it's amusing you're the first from AB to finally weigh in.

I respectfully acquiesce to your stated first-hand knowledge of the issue.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I think it stinks that the police searched and seized firearms in every home in High River. The police were supposed to be protecting the homeowners from the looters when the police themselves became the looters. But I am waiting to see what transpires before I pass final judgment on this issue. The police had already decided to enter every home in High River regardless of their firearms seizure goals because they were looking for people and pets who remained in the flood zone. I have mixed emotions about searching for people in the flood zone, but I supported the desire to rescue all the helpless pets who were left behind. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

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

[skypuppy 1]

it seems that almost 20% of the guns seized by the rcmp in this incident have been 'voluntarily destroyed'. I wonder how 'voluntarily' that was? The rcmp and the alberta government have to be held to account for this - the investigation must get to the bottom of it.

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

[aphid 0]

skypuppy

it seems that almost 20% of the guns seized by the rcmp in this incident have been 'voluntarily destroyed'. I wonder how 'voluntarily' that was? The rcmp and the alberta government have to be held to account for this - the investigation must get to the bottom of it.

Can you point me to a source Rob? Thanks.

[skypuppy 1]

I thought about posting the source in the original reply, but last few times I posted links I was blasted for not making them clicky - even at times by a mod... The figure are in the first minute or so of this interview - 539 guns were 'confiscated' and so far the rcmp admit to 'voluntarily destroying' 94...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/redfords-alternative-reality/2649891915001

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

[aphid 0]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the link. I've been looking for something to corroborate from Calgary and Edmonton as they are a little closer to the area in question. Haven't found anything yet, but I'll keep looking.

J

skypuppy

I thought about posting the source in the original reply, but last few times I posted links I was blasted for not making them clicky - even at times by a mod... The figure are in the first minute or so of this interview - 539 guns were 'confiscated' and so far the rcmp admit to 'voluntarily destroying' 94...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/redfords-alternative-reality/2649891915001

[skypuppy 1]

It was revealed this week that Mounties battered down more than 1,900 doors in the days following the overflow of the Highwood River. A conservative estimate places the damage caused by door-kicking Mounties at over $3 million, above and beyond the cost of flood damage.

Mounties also seized hundreds of firearms that they claimed were “in plain sight,” but which we have since learned were often in locked rooms or cases. In one home, Mounties had to search three times before they found two old, unloaded guns hidden behind boxes in the furnace room in the basement.

So much for “plain sight.”

As public anger over this gun grab has persisted, Mountie excuse-making has become ever more unbelievable.

For instance, participants at Thursday’s town hall, hosted by Danielle Smith, the leader of Alberta’s opposition and the MLA for the High River area, were given a letter from the RCMP’s Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan, commander of all Mounties in Alberta.

MORE: Watchdog to release report in December about Mountie gun seizures

In his letter, McGowan claimed his officers smashed down nearly 2,000 doors in the name of “protecting private property.” As one resident at the microphone wryly observed, “how is it protecting private property to destroy the doors to 1,900 homes?”

Even more incredible is the Mounties’ insistence that guns had to be removed from homes before it was safe to let residents to return to their homes because looters and vandals might take the guns.

But that makes no sense whatever. In their zeal to confiscate civilian firearms, Mounties left 1,900 homes (out of about 7,000) wide open to thieves, since it was simply impossible for them to watch over all 1,900 door-less homes as residents poured back in.

Officers didn’t take credit cards, jewelry, cash, passports or other valuables -- just guns. So their door-busting rampage actually made homes much more vulnerable to robbery. (Thankfully there was no widespread theft.)

Mounties also maximized damage during their spree. Even at homes where it would have been possible to break a window to get at the lock, officers insisted on bashing in the door. This not only causes more damage, it takes more effort and time. It amounts to unreasonable search, something prohibited by the Charter. Not even an emergency justifies police treating private property with such contempt.

This wanton destruction also occurred in areas of town untouched by rising waters, so it couldn’t have been solely about locating trapped survivors, as police insist. Despite their continued denials, Mounties must have been targeting guns. Indeed, a National Firearms Association analysis of RCMP video of the search of one home shows officers saying they have “located all the firearms.” Again that is an indication they were deliberately looking for guns, not merely collecting those they casually found in the course of their search for survivors.

from sun news.

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]

aphid

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the link. I've been looking for something to corroborate from Calgary and Edmonton as they are a little closer to the area in question. Haven't found anything yet, but I'll keep looking.

J

Information seems to only be coming out in dribs and drabs, but now it seems the rcmp are admitting to taking and destroying ammunition, as well as taking the guns (and allegedly destroying 20 % of the weapons). I am wondering tho, if the 7500 POUNDS of ammunition should read 7500 ROUNDS? Guess we'll find out...

again, from sun news...

For instance, at a Sept. 5 town hall meeting in High River, the commanding officer of the local RCMP detachment, Staff Sgt. Ian Shardlow, threw off a statistic that has been largely overlooked.

Nearly a half hour into his grilling by residents, Shardlow was detailing how many hundreds of guns had been forcibly removed from homes and how many had already been returned.

During his enumeration, Shardlow stated matter-of-factly that in addition to firearms, Mounties had also “ burned approximately seven thousand, five hundred pounds of compromised ammunition.”

Upon hearing that, the first thing that occurred to me is that in the small boats and dinghies Mounties were using, it must have taken dozens of trips to collect nearly four tons of ammunition. That means that rather than searching for survivors, their door-stomping rampage must have been first and foremost about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, otherwise they wouldn’t have devoted so much overtime pay and scarce equipment to the effort.


***I thought about posting the source in the original reply, but last few times I posted links I was blasted for not making them clicky - even at times by a mod... The figure are in the first minute or so of this interview - 539 guns were 'confiscated' and so far the rcmp admit to 'voluntarily destroying' 94...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/redfords-alternative-reality/2649891915001

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]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/a-breach-of-civil-rights/2924691378001#2923814901001

pretty long, but some interesting stuff. still no answers.

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

[aphid 0]

You were substantially correct, Rob.

The early report(s) are in...

Quote

Under the Criminal Code, such seizures did not require a warrant, but officers failed to take the necessary next step of reporting their actions to a judge.

In addition, RCMP members exceeded their authority by seizing some guns that were properly secured or that were not "in plain view," the commission found.

In all, 609 firearms were taken from 105 homes.

"While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms," the report said.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/12/high-river-gun-seizures_n_6667280.html

[skypuppy 1]

aphid

You were substantially correct, Rob.

The early report(s) are in...

Quote

Under the Criminal Code, such seizures did not require a warrant, but officers failed to take the necessary next step of reporting their actions to a judge.

In addition, RCMP members exceeded their authority by seizing some guns that were properly secured or that were not "in plain view," the commission found.

In all, 609 firearms were taken from 105 homes.

"While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms," the report said.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/12/high-river-gun-seizures_n_6667280.html

One thing that stood out in the report is in some rare cases, some officers actually moved weapons into a lockable room in the house, and locked them in, while in other cases officers far exceeded their authority to search drawers, closets, boxes and seize guns which were actually legally stored.

There were NO guidelines (that were admitted) from above about a single policy of how to handle it.

One thing the report didn't say was - if the house was locked then the guns would be in my mind legally stored even if not trigger-locked (provided they weren't loaded with readily accessible ammo). I am interpreting the locked room as the same as a locked house. It seems to me that it was the police breaking into the home and destroying the lock which left the guns in an illegal sit'n. I looked for some clarification in the report on that but I didn't find it. Hoping for clarification later on this.

They also said that if the searchers saw guns and called someone else to come take them away, the second group entering the home were no longer covered under the emergency search provision so the entry to take the guns specifically was an unlawful entry, regardless of the situation of the guns' storage.

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

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

One thing the report didn't say was - if the house was locked then the guns would be in my mind legally stored even if not trigger-locked (provided they weren't loaded with readily accessible ammo). I am interpreting the locked room as the same as a locked house. It seems to me that it was the police breaking into the home and destroying the lock which left the guns in an illegal sit'n. I looked for some clarification in the report on that but I didn't find it. Hoping for clarification later on this.

The way I read it was as follows:

They had a right to "break into" the houses under the emergency search. If that left the firearms in an unlocked area (illegally stored) they would have had the right to remove them. They then needed to go to a judge to to get a warrant for this seazure after the fact.

Obviously they never should have started looking for them.

This makes sense to me.

If through the legal action of the police or others the firearms in these evacuated homes were left in plain site, it makes sense that they take steps to secure them in such a fashion.

[skypuppy 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

One thing the report didn't say was - if the house was locked then the guns would be in my mind legally stored even if not trigger-locked (provided they weren't loaded with readily accessible ammo). I am interpreting the locked room as the same as a locked house. It seems to me that it was the police breaking into the home and destroying the lock which left the guns in an illegal sit'n. I looked for some clarification in the report on that but I didn't find it. Hoping for clarification later on this.

The way I read it was as follows:

They had a right to "break into" the houses under the emergency search. If that left the firearms in an unlocked area (illegally stored) they would have had the right to remove them. They then needed to go to a judge to to get a warrant for this seazure after the fact.

Obviously they never should have started looking for them.

This makes sense to me.

If through the legal action of the police or others the firearms in these evacuated homes were left in plain site, it makes sense that they take steps to secure them in such a fashion.

in plain sight is not necessarily illegally stored. If it's trigger-locked, or had the firing pin removed then even in plain sight it is still not illegally stored and they would have no right to take them. It is not like they took care of them anyways - many were just tossed in the bottom of the boat in the water and mud until they got somewhere they could unload them, and then were piled on the floor of the station with sticky notes one them saying which house they came from.

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

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

in plain sight is not necessarily illegally stored. If it's trigger-locked, or had the firing pin removed then even in plain sight it is still not illegally stored and they would have no right to take them.

Agreed.

Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises.

However, clearly it should have been done properly.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

in plain sight is not necessarily illegally stored. If it's trigger-locked, or had the firing pin removed then even in plain sight it is still not illegally stored and they would have no right to take them.

Agreed.

Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises.

However, clearly it should have been done properly.

OK - so you evacuate, leave your house all locked up tight, and the police break in and the looters don't. . . that is OK with you?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[BartsDaddy 4]

Of course the RCMP are just keeping the looters from getting them.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[SkyDekker 1,145]

turtlespeed

***

Quote

in plain sight is not necessarily illegally stored. If it's trigger-locked, or had the firing pin removed then even in plain sight it is still not illegally stored and they would have no right to take them.

Agreed.

Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises.

However, clearly it should have been done properly.

OK - so you evacuate, leave your house all locked up tight, and the police break in and the looters don't. . . that is OK with you?

If that is established protocol to ensure that evacuation has taken place, yes I am OK with that.

Idiots who stay behind end up costing the tax payers more when they have to get rescued.

The article made it pretty clear the police had a legal right to do so.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

in plain sight is not necessarily illegally stored. If it's trigger-locked, or had the firing pin removed then even in plain sight it is still not illegally stored and they would have no right to take them.

Agreed.

Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises.

However, clearly it should have been done properly.

OK - so you evacuate, leave your house all locked up tight, and the police break in and the looters don't. . . that is OK with you?

If that is established protocol to ensure that evacuation has taken place, yes I am OK with that.

Idiots who stay behind end up costing the tax payers more when they have to get rescued.

The article made it pretty clear the police had a legal right to do so.

You are honestly ok with people breaking into your house to make sure you aren't there?

Really?. Doesn't bother you at all?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,145]

turtlespeed

*********

Quote

in plain sight is not necessarily illegally stored. If it's trigger-locked, or had the firing pin removed then even in plain sight it is still not illegally stored and they would have no right to take them.

Agreed.

Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises.

However, clearly it should have been done properly.

OK - so you evacuate, leave your house all locked up tight, and the police break in and the looters don't. . . that is OK with you?

If that is established protocol to ensure that evacuation has taken place, yes I am OK with that.

Idiots who stay behind end up costing the tax payers more when they have to get rescued.

The article made it pretty clear the police had a legal right to do so.

You are honestly ok with people breaking into your house to make sure you aren't there?

Really?. Doesn't bother you at all?

The police ensuring there is nobody left behind after a mandatory evacuation order. Ensuring all have the had the ability to safely leave.

Yeah, I have no problem with that. Actually I would suggest it to be good policy.

Would hate to find out some people died because they fell out of their wheelchair, or stumbled down the stairs or in any other way were prevented from leaving and required help.

I hold the life of people in higher regard than a front door or two.

I further think that securing firearms found during this exercise is good policy as well. The way it was executed however was piss poor. Which is exactly what the report found as well.

[champu 1]

One of the concerns that people have here in the US really stems from the sum total of anti-gun behavior.

In California (yeah, one state but over 12% of the population) it's legal to own just about anything. But over the last 15 years it has become illegal to buy more and more things. You cannot buy assault weapons, even from other people through a dealer. You cannot buy 10+ magazines, even from other people through a dealer. You cannot buy NFA items even if you go through the federal tax and registration process. You cannot buy any handgun designed in the last couple years new, and you can only buy older models new as long as those manufacturers continue making them, unchanged, and as long as they pay fees to CA uninterrupted. For now, you can still buy any used handgun through a dealer.

So what happens in a disaster?

"Hey, there's a fire in the hills nearby and we're not sure which way it's going to go, so we're evacuating your neighborhood."

Okay...

Police kick in every door to make sure everyone is out and, hey while they're there, take all firearms to "secure" them. Firefighters control the blaze (thank you firefighters) and people return to their homes.

What happened to the guns? Oh the police accidentally stored them in a sewer and they've been destroyed. But don't worry the county will reimburse you.

"Well, can I replace what I had?"

"Nope, sucker! Go pound sand!"

Now, is this likely to happen? Well, by definition it is only as likely or less likely to happen as the natural disaster itself. But there are plenty of individuals in positions of power in law enforcement agencies in California who could implement responses like this more or less single-handedly and, judging by some of their past statements and behavior, would more than happily do so. It seems to be what happened in the OP case and it seems to be what happened in the case of Katrina.