The Great Gun Control Debate

[Container]

except for the fact that there is legal authority to seize firearms improperly in plain view when your legally present.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

except for the fact that there is legal authority to seize firearms improperly in plain view when your legally present.

If properly secured a long gun can be in plain view (wall mounted) and the legal authority for seizure is not there.

No more than it would be if they had gone to the store or on vacation and left it trigger locked above the fireplace.

Improperly in plain view? That's one of those things the crown says when they try to make a conviction on something like non existent ammo storage regs.

 

[Container]

You know you havent supplied one example that that is what happened in any of these houses. It says they were stored in plain view improperly and will be returned.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You know you havent supplied one example that that is what happened in any of these houses. It says they were stored in plain view improperly and will be returned.

.....and you haven't supplied one example that it wasn't. I have always prefaced my opinion with 'If' as in a possibility, a hypothetical.

"If these long guns were trigger locked". See the difference there?

I'm sorry, but when it comes to civilian ownership of firearms and the police, they've lost the trust of gun owners. The only way out for them is like what they say in Missouri...."Show me" ..........because we've learned to take their word at our peril.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Look I get it. You're a cop. You want to believe that anyone obeying the law wouldn't get screwed over by the police. Unfortunately, we know that's a fantasy. So you get burned up and frustrated. We don't want to distrust cops, but there's been too many documented cases to ignore.

This'll all come out in the wash and there'll likely be enough blame for both sides to go around. Until it does, we're entitled to dissect and discuss until they tell the corroborated truth and we find out exactly what happened. I have no doubt this will result in, at minimum, a Ministerial Inquiry.

 

[Teager]

Container I will apoligize for my earlier posts more out of frustration with police in my area. I can see no one is really siding with you a whole lot on the issue. I think it would be safe to say that the RCMP should issue an apology to the residents but at the same time put out that there intent was safety and protection. That way residents feel better about the apology and the police still get the message across. I think with the flooding this is just an added stressor for everyone involved including the police. The police and civilians should be coming together in this time of need and need to focus efforts on re-building and helping eachother out.

Hopefully after everything is starting to get cleaned up there is an AAR and I'm sure any mistakes made will be pointed out and noted so that if something ever happens again those mistakes will not occur or at least people will be better prepared and understand more of what the police have to do and why.

All I hope is that the RCMP and residents can start to co-operate more and get back to life.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So the message is, if I'm forced off my property in the event of an emergency, lock up my guns, but leave the front door open so it doesn't get damaged in the event of RCMP concern for my personal property.  Message received.

 

[McBrush]

Give back flood victims' guns, Harper's office tells RCMP

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Give back flood victims' guns, Harper's office tells RCMP

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

You're late to the party. See post #2447. (40 posts ago )

 

[Container]

.....and you haven't supplied one example that it wasn't. I have always prefaced my opinion with 'If' as in a possibility, a hypothetical.

"If these long guns were trigger locked". See the difference there?

I'm sorry, but when it comes to civilian ownership of firearms and the police, they've lost the trust of gun owners. The only way out for them is like what they say in Missouri...."Show me" ..........because we've learned to take their word at our peril.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Look I get it. You're a cop. You want to believe that anyone obeying the law wouldn't get screwed over by the police. Unfortunately, we know that's a fantasy. So you get burned up and frustrated. We don't want to distrust cops, but there's been too many documented cases to ignore.

Not unfair. I disagree- BUT it is not unfair. I would be pretty ignorant if I would try to say that some police officers, some very influential, do not have a holy war on firearms.

This'll all come out in the wash and there'll likely be enough blame for both sides to go around. Until it does, we're entitled to dissect and discuss until they tell the corroborated truth and we find out exactly what happened. I have no doubt this will result in, at minimum, a Ministerial Inquiry.

It would just be frigging nice if instead of trying to make a news quips we could do a little 'just the facts'. This is what we did, under this authority, we seized this much, this is what we plan.

Then if folks didnt like it there could be a conversation about it. It is unfortunate we're ignorant towards firearms owners at best, and at worst disarm the public when when political opportunity happens. And its unfortunate that firearms owners across facebook, cbc and other places lie about police cutting into their safes, and call us murdering nazi's, and call for us to be shot. That isnt a recipe for success.

Im not going to say the same thing again. This is the last time- you guys can feign ignorance all you like(and keep quoting the initial report-not that youre actually ignorant)- the homes were not forced open to protect anyones PROPERTY. It was for the evacuation. I dont care what the media boob said in his first release. He is a media guy- his cuffs are rusted in their pouch, he makes no operational decisions, and doesnt understand most of what is said in a briefing. He takes a large amount of info and makes it baby food for the news. The baby food isnt always correct.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So the message is, if I'm forced off my property in the event of an emergency, lock up my guns, but leave the front door open so it doesn't get damaged in the event of RCMP concern for my personal property safety.  Much better.  Message received.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not unfair. I disagree- BUT it is not unfair. I would be pretty ignorant if I was to say that some police officers, some very influential, have a holy war on firearms.

It would just be frigging nice if instead of trying to make a news quips we could do a little 'just the facts'. This is what we did, under this authority, we seized this much, this is what we plan.

Then if folks didnt like it there could be a conversation about it. It is unfortunate we're ignorant towards firearms owners at best, and at worst disarm the public when when political opportunity happens. And its unfortunate that firearms owners across facebook, cbc and other places lie about police cutting into their safes, and call us murdering nazi's, and call for us to be shot. That isnt a recipe for success.

Im not going to say the same thing again. This is the last time- you guys can feign ignorance all you like- the homes were not forced open to protect anyones PROPERTY. It was for the evacuation. I dont care what the media boob said in his first release. He is a media guy- his cuffs are rusted in their pouch, he makes no operational decisions, and doesnt understand most of what is said in a briefing. He takes a large amount of info and makes it baby food for the news. The baby food isnt always correct.

I'm not going to go back to check, but I'm pretty sure I was the first to raise the possibility that that's exactly why they were going house to house. For the evacuation, so let's not get carried away trying to make this a black and white, the cops are right and you're all wrong scenario.

I have no problem if the gun was unsafe and laying on a coffee table. I have a huge problem if it's found that any of these were secure and sitting in closets, on walls or behind the door of a bedroom.

That's all most are talking about. Get over it. The RCMP shit the bed, at least PR wise................and maybe, just maybe, practically also. We'll have to wait and see.


After all, it's not like it hasn't happened before........right?

 

[Container]

Im not saying the owners are in the wrong. Thats why I dont support charges- I think the owners are victims of a natural disaster and alot of the guns very well could have been moved up so they wouldnt be water damaged- thats a reasonable excuse given extraordinary circumstance.

I have no doubt mistakes were made. They aren't made at the organizational level and its not part of a scheme to disarm high river. Owners should be lodging complaints and foiping the crap out of this. The RCMP should be fully transparent as well. Im moderate here. I can guarantee several firearms storage mistakes on our part are made. Its the nature of our workforce. They arent firearms saavy. Complain and get those members counselled.

As an aside- Im uber critical of the police. I criticize what we do and how we go about it all the time. I frame my criticisms differently is all. And yes you guys are free to say it however you like- but Im going to call someone on it if it doesnt pass the smell test. Not as a cop, but as a gun owner, we lose ground when we let our mouths run ahead of our brains and say the sky is falling everytime someone's guns are seized. I understand the sentiment and where it comes from- but in my opinion it reduces the strength or credibility of being a "responsible gun owner". If that makes sense? Anyways. Ill switch back to listen. Ive beaten the horse to death....

 

[Container]

Container I will apoligize for my earlier posts more out of frustration with police in my area. I can see no one is really siding with you a whole lot on the issue. I think it would be safe to say that the RCMP should issue an apology to the residents but at the same time put out that there intent was safety and protection. That way residents feel better about the apology and the police still get the message across. I think with the flooding this is just an added stressor for everyone involved including the police. The police and civilians should be coming together in this time of need and need to focus efforts on re-building and helping eachother out.

Hopefully after everything is starting to get cleaned up there is an AAR and I'm sure any mistakes made will be pointed out and noted so that if something ever happens again those mistakes will not occur or at least people will be better prepared and understand more of what the police have to do and why.

All I hope is that the RCMP and residents can start to co-operate more and get back to life.

Agreed. And its super sad that it was ever allowed to get this adversarial.

 

[jpjohnsn]

In reading  this thread, I'm seeing a lot of people noting, correctly, what the standard for safe storage is and that people who store their firearms safely should not be charged. 

What I'm reading from the RCMP side of things is that they are not looking to charge people but trigger locked or cabled firearms in plain sight is still an invitation for them to be stolen. I'd find it abhorrent if the firearms were "seized" for the purposes of charging the owners and not securing them in case of looters.

Now, to me, lawfully stored or not, I will never consider a cable or trigger locked firearm propped in the corner or hanging on a rack to be safely stored.  I have a gun safe and a random looter would need an oxy-acetylene torch and most of the day to get at my guns.

Now, legally considered a method of safe storage or not, I've lost faith in trigger and cable locks entirely.  About a year ago I had to replace the locks on a couple of my rifles (I was so stupid, I bought a brand new combination trigger lock for one and a combination cable lock for another so I didn't have worry about keys and promptly forgot the combinations and accidentally recycled the paper copy  :facepalm.  Anyway, in trying to open the locks to get replacements, I found I could open the trigger lock with a simple tool I made from a common item (won't say here, PM me if you're that bored) in less than two minutes - including making the tool.  The cable lock succumbed to a small set of bolt cutters in not much more time.  Like I said, I keep everything in the gun safe now.

If I can unlock two "secure" firearms in less than 10 minutes, others can do it faster and I'm sure the RCMP knows that too.  If your house is unattended and the situation is amenable to looters, securing those openly viewable firearms is not that unreasonable.  A looter can pick up an unattended (but locked) gun off a gunrack and take the lock off at their leisure.  Given the choice between taking your laptop and spending time trying to breach your gun safe, they'll take your laptop, and your bigscreen, but not your guns.

 

[ballz]

If I can unlock two "secure" firearms in less than 10 minutes, others can do it faster and I'm sure the RCMP knows that too.

As RG already said, we didn't write the law... whatever our personal feelings are on what is safe storage and what is not is irrelevant. We (they?) have it written down in black and white for a reason. If someone is adhering to what is written down in black and white, then that's what counts.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In reading  this thread, I'm seeing a lot of people noting, correctly, what the standard for safe storage is and that people who store their firearms safely should not be charged. 

What I'm reading from the RCMP side of things is that they are not looking to charge people but trigger locked or cabled firearms in plain sight is still an invitation for them to be stolen. I'd find it abhorrent if the firearms were "seized" for the purposes of charging the owners and not securing them in case of looters.

Now, to me, lawfully stored or not, I will never consider a cable or trigger locked firearm propped in the corner or hanging on a rack to be safely stored.  I have a gun safe and a random looter would need an oxy-acetylene torch and most of the day to get at my guns.

Now, legally considered a method of safe storage or not, I've lost faith in trigger and cable locks entirely.  About a year ago I had to replace the locks on a couple of my rifles (I was so stupid, I bought a brand new combination trigger lock for one and a combination cable lock for another so I didn't have worry about keys and promptly forgot the combinations and accidentally recycled the paper copy  :facepalm.  Anyway, in trying to open the locks to get replacements, I found I could open the trigger lock with a simple tool I made from a common item (won't say here, PM me if you're that bored) in less than two minutes - including making the tool.  The cable lock succumbed to a small set of bolt cutters in not much more time.  Like I said, I keep everything in the gun safe now.

If I can unlock two "secure" firearms in less than 10 minutes, others can do it faster and I'm sure the RCMP knows that too.  If your house is unattended and the situation is amenable to looters, securing those openly viewable firearms is not that unreasonable.  A looter can pick up an unattended (but locked) gun off a gunrack and take the lock off at their leisure.  Given the choice between taking your laptop and spending time trying to breach your gun safe, they'll take your laptop, and your bigscreen, but not your guns.

No one is disputing the uselessness of trigger locks. That is not the point

What they are saying is that's what makes it legally secure. It is more than possible that some guns that were seized were legally secure and legally stored as defined. That means they were within the law and didn't break it. There is no grey, you're within the law or outside of it.

It doesn't say you can't be stupid, but that's not against the law either.

The other point being, once again, that being evacuated and not having someone there is no different than if they went on vacation or to the movies.
They don't expect to see their firearms seized in those circumstances, and they don't expect to see them seized now.

This isn't about trigger locks, emotion or judgment calls

It's about the law and the expectation of the public that EVERYONE, including the caretakers, are expected to follow it.

 

[JorgSlice]

As one of the people that assisted in the Care and Welfare searches of homes in High River accompaniment with RCMP, there were an astonishing amount of firearms left on tables, couches, floors for no apparent reason. Most were not in proper storage, as it is not legal to have firearms in plain view unless on display with bolt removed, trigger guard, cable barrel lock and those not in plain view must be secured in a lockable closet or gun safe or in a locked case hidden away somewhere. The officers seized those left illegally stored but will be returning them to the owners upon presentation of proof without penalty. Any firearms that were stripped and locked but still laying out in the homes during the checks were removed so that they would not be lost into the flood waters and can be recovered by the owners, once again without penalty.

The RCMP were checking ALL houses alongside CF personnel as there is no way any of them or us had any knowing which houses had PAL holders or firearms or both. This has nothing to do with high brass using a crisis to crack down on anyone and everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. Yes there was a large amount of firearms recovered but the reaction from Sun News and most of the general public is over the top and unreasonable.

Edit: was typing like I had Hams for hands.

 

[Container]

The CBC story was updated:

At a press conference Friday in High River held by provincial and municipal officials, RCMP Insp. Gerrett Woolsey told reporters several hundred guns had been seized as officers inspected every home they could enter over a period of several days.

"It's no different than Slave Lake, to seize firearms or to secure firearms that are in plain view," Garrett said, referring to the Alberta community swept by fire in 2011.

Garrett said it appeared that people in High River took their firearms out of storage with the intention of removing them or moving them to higher ground, but then left them behind as they fled their homes. He added that in "the unlikely event" RCMP found an illegal gun, the public prosecutor would be informed, but "in the vast majority of cases — I hope in all the cases — we are going to return these firearms to their owners as soon as possible."

 

[ballz]

So from the last two posts my deduction is that they did, in fact, confiscate weapons even if they were stored properly. And a lot of them by the sounds of it...

Most were not in proper storage, as it is not legal to have firearms in plain view unless on display with bolt removed, trigger guard, cable barrel lock and those not in plain view must be secured in a lockable closet or gun safe or in a locked case hidden away somewhere.

This is not true for non-restricted weapons (which would make up the vast majority) as has already been stated and the reference is here http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm

A locked case does not need to be "hidden away somewhere," it can be left on the coffee table. It is legal to have firearms "in plain view," as long as they have ONE of the three safeguards mentioned (bolt removed -OR- trigger guard -OR- cable lock... the key word is "OR" not "AND").

 

[JorgSlice]

So from the last two posts my deduction is that they did, in fact, confiscate weapons even if they were stored properly. And a lot of them by the sounds of it...

This is not true for non-restricted weapons (which would make up the vast majority) as has already been stated and the reference is here http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm

A locked case does not need to be "hidden away somewhere," it can be left on the coffee table. It is legal to have firearms "in plain view," as long as they have ONE of the three safeguards mentioned (bolt removed -OR- trigger guard -OR- cable lock... the key word is "OR" not "AND").

That is what I was trying to get at. May not be clear, but I just finished long shift.

There were plenty that were and plenty that were not but regardless they will all be returned without penalty.