The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

"When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure," Corp. Darrin Turnbull told CBC News in an interview.

"In those situations, when they were out in plain view and they were not properly secured and stored, those firearms were taken by the RCMP member and safely secured in the High River detachment."

A more well composed statement from this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/28/pol-pmo-guns-alberta.html

What a mess.

Here's the problem though, if the gun was standing in the corner, in plain sight, it was taken.

If that non restricted firearm had a trigger lock, it was properly stored and secured and should not have been touched.

So once again, their statement doesn't jive with a lawful reason for seizure.

Any bets on how many of those guns now in the RCMP lockup have trigger locks or their bolts removed, meaning they were seized without cause?

 

[Container]

That would be a case of stupid cop rather than whipping gun owners though.

And we dont know if thats ANY of the firearms that were seized. Wouldnt surprise me though- but the officer is acting in good faith so no criminal liability is present. Civil is another story.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

RG,...I guess NO ONE would be capable of taking off a trigger lock once they stole the firearm though eh??

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That would be a case of stupid cop rather than whipping gun owners though.

And we dont know if thats ANY of the firearms that were seized. Wouldnt surprise me though- but the officer is acting in good faith so no criminal liability is present. Civil is another story.

This isn't a case of a couple of cops out on their own bumbling into this and not knowing the law.

Someone gave direction to do this. Whoever that was, is high enough that they should be well versed in firearm law. Enough to give proper direction and instruction to the beat cop NOT versed in firearms law, to ensure improper seizure didn't take place.

I can go along with a beat cop acting in good faith because even though they are sworn to uphold the law, any that know firearms law are few and far between. Which is actually pretty sad, given that an 18 year old with a .22 and a PAL can talk circles around most cops when it comes to our firearms laws.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I dont follow?

I didn't know he was acquitted.  What I mean though is that if this Ian fellow was charged for what (I believe and I assume many others) looks like a bullshit attempt to "get him with something" by the police under crazy circumstances (someone attempting murder) then if some Albertans who just didn't lock up their guns can have them confiscated then returned without punishment it doesn't seem very fair or impartial by the police. Or well whoever lays charges.
Almost being murdered and leaving a gun on a table waiting for police to show up > Leaving your house with firearms unsecure and laying around.

Know what I mean?  I'm not saying the Albertans should get charged but it shows how bad some people wanted to punish Ian Thomson.



I'm actually leaning towards the police removing firearms in plain view (even with trigger locks and bolts removed) as possibly a good thing considering looters. The way they handled it and the public seems very idiotic.

 

[Robert0288]

RG,...I guess NO ONE would be capable of taking off a trigger lock once they stole the firearm though eh??

Doesn't really matter though.  A trigger lock is proper storage for non-restricted firearms.  Same goes for a locked cabinet.  Although I'm sure someone who is breaking into a house will have no problems with a locked cabinet either.  If the intent is there for someone to break into a house and steal something, very little will actually prevent them.  Example: http://youtu.be/nBhOjWHbD6M?t=2m18s

 

[Fishbone Jones]

RG,...I guess NO ONE would be capable of taking off a trigger lock once they stole the firearm though eh??

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Gun owners didn't propose, pass and implement C-68 and all it's bullshit. We just follow it.

All of C-68 has to be applied equally. We don't get to pick and choose which portions we agree to abide by.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I believe the appeal period for Ian is over. As for trigger locks, they only stop the most dimwitted and then only for a certain amount of time. A bit like spelling backwards as a code to prevent theft of information. the real reason for trigger locks is prevent owners from using their guns in self-defense.

I have kids, if the gun is not in my hands or holster, it's in the safe locked. I trust my kids, but....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I don't hate.............firearm owners have been screwed royally in the past and it's wrong.

But if you can't see how collecting unsecured firearms in this situation from an area where scum of the earth could possibly be operating full bore than you have passed a point of being capable of rationality.

 

[Container]

This isn't a case of a couple of cops out on their own bumbling into this and not knowing the law.

Someone gave direction to do this. Whoever that was, is high enough that they should be well versed in firearm law. Enough to give proper direction and instruction to the beat cop NOT versed in firearms law, to ensure improper seizure didn't take place.

I can go along with a beat cop acting in good faith because even though they are sworn to uphold the law, any that know firearms law are few and far between. Which is actually pretty sad, given that an 18 year old with a .22 and a PAL can talk circles around most cops when it comes to our firearms laws.

Recce- I appreciate your position but your mistaken. The detachment commanders and incident commanders have zero knowledge of firearms law. As do most police officers- it isnt required to do our jobs in a general sense. Someone cant carry in public. Guns cant be left "lying around". That is all the "training" they recieve. Generally the beat cop has better up to date knowledge of the law. Detachment commanders dont go to court.

 

[Container]

I didn't know he was acquitted.  What I mean though is that if this Ian fellow was charged for what (I believe and I assume many others) looks like a bullshit attempt to "get him with something" by the police under crazy circumstances (someone attempting murder) then if some Albertans who just didn't lock up their guns can have them confiscated then returned without punishment it doesn't seem very fair or impartial by the police. Or well whoever lays charges.
Almost being murdered and leaving a gun on a table waiting for police to show up > Leaving your house with firearms unsecure and laying around.

Know what I mean?  I'm not saying the Albertans should get charged but it shows how bad some people wanted to punish Ian Thomson.



I'm actually leaning towards the police removing firearms in plain view (even with trigger locks and bolts removed) as possibly a good thing considering looters. The way they handled it and the public seems very idiotic.

Ontario and their Chief firearms guy, a civilian, come up with some bizarre fights.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Bruce
The sad thing is there is no level of trust anymore. The actions of the police leadership can in a few minutes destroy the hard work over years of many frontline officers. There are police officers that I would easily trust with my life. But the one police service that I grew up trusting like I did my parents, lost that trust quite some time ago. However I always try to build that bridge everytime I meet police officers at the range or otherwise. Sometimes we gain a step or two in the right direction.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't hate.............firearm owners have been screwed royally in the past and it's wrong.

But if you can't see how collecting unsecured firearms in this situation from an area where scum of the earth could possibly be operating full bore than you have passed a point of being capable of rationality.

I know you don't Bruce. Bender was the quickest I could come up with for hating the game, not the player. I'm trying to keep this light, but informative.

It's an emotional issue, which makes it hard.

While I'll agree that trigger locks might not do the job, that's what the law calls for. We didn't make the laws, but are expected to abide by them.

When we abide by the laws, we expect to be left alone. That includes our property.

The RCMP said they were using unsafe storage and security as a reason to seize.

I'm simply saying that if one of those guns had a trigger lock, their statement is, once again, wrong. It wasn't unsafe, stored improperly or anything else.

The people that own these see no difference in leaving it there, legally, in that condition, whether they've been evacuated, gone on vacation or out to the movie.

The RCMP should simply quit talking and making up excuses until they have a bulletproof press release, or as many think, are willing to come clean about overstepping their bounds.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The RCMP should simply quit talking and making up excuses until they have a bulletproof press release, or as many think, are willing to come clean about overstepping their bounds.

This. 

.....oh, and a media that reports news and not 'spins' wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ontario and their Chief firearms guy, a civilian, come up with some bizarre fights.

The Ontario Chief Firearms Officer is not a civvie.

He's Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Chris Wyatt, who made $150,000 base salary, before perks, last year for putting the screws to gun owners and thumbing his nose at the feds.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This. 

.....oh, and a media that reports news and not 'spins' wouldn't hurt either.

If the RCMP didn't say anything, the press wouldn't be able to quote them.

It's immaterial though because once again, the discussion is devolving from factual discussion to ad hominem emotion.

 

[Container]

My fault.

I was completely wrong. Mea Culpa.

I had no idea- his one man war on firearms is just as bad. Maybe worse in that case

 

[Jarnhamar]

Ontario and their Chief firearms guy, a civilian, come up with some bizarre fights.

The confiscated firearms were put in containers.
Your user name is container.
You're defending the police.
Just saying..... ;D

No I know what you mean. It's like NCOs on Op Cadence having to support the CoCs order that troops were not allowed to wear black BEW lenses (and stare into the sun basically) because dark lenses look aggressive.
Sometimes the foot soldiers or squad whips have to do some stupid things.

I've had to try and argue with a firearms officer about the firearms act. He was right out to lunch (.45 pistols are only allowed 5 rounds because they are special, 9mms are allowed 15 rounds..) Thats why when I shoot I have my registry paper, ATT and a copy of the firearms act for pistols off the RCMP website.

 

[Dissident]

After the actual badge the item I treasure most from graduating from CFMPA was the handy little flip book titled something like: the police officers firearms law handbook. Sadly I have already established that most cops do not keep it handy, if at all.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Whether stored in a locked cabinet, fitted with a trigger lock, or a breach cable lock, or bolt removed and locked away,  a lock only keeps an honest person honest.  A person who will break into a house will break into a gun cabinet.  If these firearm owners are found to be compliant with regulations, yet still had their property confiscated secured to protect their investments (  : ), someone needs a major dick slap.