High River- Police seizure of firearms

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by guyvapeur

...
Heres a few tidbits I have mulled in the back of my head. The words *Order in Council* come to mind when a device or firearm can be declared prohibited. This, as I understand it means that the Criminal Code allows a group, council or body to define what in fact is prohibited. The RCMP is mandated by law to register certain firearms. This they do on behalf of the people of Canada, as they do all criminal histories.
...
Last I heard, a peace officer upon finding an unsecured firearm may seize the firearm but must within 24 hours (or short time) bring it before a justice of the peace for a decision.
...
There is mention that main stream media is not covering this event and people are perplexed. Maybe there is no story and they can not spin into anything more than it is .
...

Guy, there is a sentiment in the West that the friendly helpful constable is a thing of the past. Many people have lost faith in the Force to control itself and to do the right thing. As far as the reclassification of two types of rifle goes, this started as a dispute between two former business partners. One tried to rat out the other for "illegal" firearms.

What galls most observers is the cloudiness of the reclassification decision. Is this a technical decision based on engineering and mechanical examination, or a political decision based on an administrative process taking advantage of 20-yr old regulations that have not kept pace with the market? Or, did the Force manoeuver the Minister to their purposes?

The Press was closed mouth mute when even the Prime Minister, whose riding includes High River, told the Force to knock it off. Why bother with belongings behind closed doors, when the area is cordoned off airtight? And why go back two and three times to specific houses? Does this not bring the administration of the law into disrepute?

Let's all remember that the Somalia scandals undermined a tremendous amount of good work done by the three services in the name of peace. An elite regiment of good men who were brought into the Airborne Regiment after a major house cleaning of misfits and bad soldiers, was summarily punished by disbanding the regiment. A few steroid enraged sociopaths had screwed things up for everyone for years. But the politicians didn't see any difference. We on the outside never see cops disciplined for perceived or real wrongdoings. If it turns out that someone really overstepped their authority in High River or at the Firearms Lab', let the public know and maybe it will undo some of the hard feelings.

[Marc Montgomery]

Guy, while you say the officers took no joy in smashing the doors, is there an explanation of why they would ( in a couple of cases) smash unlocked doors (as claimed by some HR residents)?
Is there an explanation why they would break into an empty house under renovation? Im also curious, not having any knowledge of such matters and in the several cases where this was possible, why they would not break a small side window and reach in to unlock the doors, which would be in the order of a hundred dollars damage as opposed to 1000 or more?

why traipse through the house opening closets and drawers?

If there was a theoretical threat of looting, surely over a thousand smashed doors leaving houses completely open would leave houses more vulnerable to looting?

As others, I am curious as to why MSM is not covering this as it absolutely is a story, when you have millions of dollars of damage to over a 1000 homes caused- with reason or without- by a government agency. Its not as if theyre avoiding follow up on the issue. I cannot recall any of the major tv networks reporting anything on this aspect of the situation, and I am a fairly regular watcher and listener to news reports

Now there's a deadline for claims.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mage-1.2564302

[Jon Skagfeld]

It has been reported that the findings of the investigation of the RCMP's actions in High River will not be made public until early June.

How convenient.

Parliament breaks for the summer BBQ circuit then.

[Marc Montgomery]

Guy, I dont know how long youve been out, but is it possible that since your years in service as an RCMP, the culture in the force has changed, and that may be what's behind, either higher or middle decisions such as this one to break in and confiscate?

Any idea on what level such a decision would have been made?

I have also heard that a similar thing happened in Slave Lake when the fire forced evacuation.. BUT I have not seen or heard anything to confirm or substantiate That particular claim.

[chris vickery]

Maybe someone who knows better may set me straight on this but here goes;
I thought that in order for Police to enter/search a premises and lay charges, that they had to have just cause. Be it a court issued warrant or have witnessed or seen in open sight a violation of law. eg. coming to the door of a home and being able to clearly see inside the illegal item in plain view.
As far as laying charges for unlawful storage in the High River case, I would argue that yes, perhaps these situation were encountered, but only after Police conducted a break and enter of the premises. Kind of crosses each other out as far as I'm concerned but I am not a lawyer. I believe that this is why no charges were laid in these cases as it would be paramount to embarrassment on the behalf of the RCMP.
If the areas were cordoned off and locked down as suggested, there really was not any reason in the interest of Public Safety to illegally enter and seize personal property. Things were safe right where they were.
As far as lawsuits involving the Firearms act and reclassification, that is coming henceforth by the NFA.
I understand that the RCMP has been tasked with the administration of the Act but I fail to understand how perfectly legal firearms yesterday become illegal today by the stroke of a pen and how law abiding Citizens become criminals overnight?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Tony Wheeler]

Upon reflection I feel I've intruded on this thread so I've removed my posts accordingly. While many of the issues raised are relevant to Australians, particularly evacuation policy during natural disasters, I suspect they're best discussed in general terms rather than in the context of one particular event, particularly the High River case where the focus is largely on gun control rather than disaster management.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Reference your post #39,You, sir, are brainwashed by your occupational world.

BTW, there is already a class action suit being formed...ever hear of Ed Burlew?

[Marc Montgomery]

Tony : dont know why you feel youve intruded, and less why youve removed your posts. This case is an example of what can happen if people dont speak out. And if you let it happen once without a whimper it will happen again, and again and possible get more aggravated with time.
When it happens in one place, we should all be aware. There have already been campaigns- fortunately nipped in the bud- by "do-gooders" who want to ban all old cars...equating them as dangerous with inferior brakes etc, and horrifically polluting.
Insurance companies in many cases, dislike "old" vehicles and insure them with restrictions. "Safety" regulations are becoming absurd and could easily one day force our old military vehicles completely off the roads. Many think that old army vehicles should not even be in private hands in any case.
Removing oneself from a conversation that directly or indirectly does affect our hobby, and our rights and civil liberties, is I think counterproductive



CHRIS- my understanding with the original law was that changes could be made at the discretion of the minister- or by order in council.. dangerous enough I would think as there need be no parliamentary or public discussion! I do not think the RCMP has this discretionary power at all...perhaps they can advise the minister but I doubt they can legally make this decision on their own.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Marc Montgomery

Tony : dont know why you feel youve intruded, and less why youve removed your posts. This case is an example of what can happen if people dont speak out.

Marc, I felt perhaps it was inappropriate for me to comment on events in another country, not being familiar with the situation on the ground. Ill-informed comments from outsiders are generally unwelcome, and rightfully so. Particularly when it involves gun control, which is a highly emotive issue and the situation varies widely from country to country.

On the general question of speaking out, I couldn't agree with you more. Incidents like this only occur because we've failed to speak out sufficiently in the past. In this case however there'll be plenty of speaking out, because it occurred on such a scale that class action is possible, and there's no shortage of evidence available. That's rarely the case with individuals, who lack sufficient evidence and resources to seek redress in court.

I must say as an Australian I've been surprised to find the RCMP so out of favour in Canada - certainly a far cry from the romantic image of the Mounties we learned about as children in primary school! However it seems to me the local guys did a fine job, rescuing 300 people stranded in homes, and it was only afterwards when the SWAT teams came in that the gratuitous door bashing and gun search and seizure occurred. If so then it's to be hoped that credit is given where it's due, and the blame falls on the right shoulders. Or boots in this case!

What interests me most about this case though is how did the whole town come to be evacuated? As Guy said earlier he knows of no magic powers that can force people to leave their homes, even in a time of crisis. Also it's clear that some people were able to remain, with one of them being interviewed on the scene. That would lead me to think everybody evacuated voluntarily, which I find very surprising if true, because generally with this kind of flood in Australia the residents on higher ground will stay to defend their homes, maintaining levies and sandbagging etc. Sometimes of course they wind up having to be rescued off the roof, or even plucked out of trees, and there are always people who ignore warnings and try to drive across fast flowing streams, and have to be rescued after being swept away. Life would certainly be much easier for police and emergency services if everybody evacuated, and the issue of forced evacuation is forever on the agenda here. So far though I've not heard of it being done, except in Marysville after the Black Saturday bushfires, when the whole town was declared a crime scene and sealed off for six weeks. However in that case the town had been nuked, barely a handful of buildings left standing, and dozens of bodies to be searched for and identified. Media was allowed in to report, but evacuees were only taken back in buses a week later for a brief visit, not even allowed to get off the bus.

Hopefully commonsense will prevail and we'll never see forced evacuation here, because people have a right to defend their homes if they're well prepared. Even in Marysville it was done successfully by several residents. Likewise in Canada, and it seems to me that if High River had not been so thoroughly evacuated the gun search and seizure would never have occurred. I may be wrong, but I can't see them pulling a stunt like that with neighbours present. Certainly any perceived need to secure firearms would be greatly lessened with a residual population in place.