The Great Gun Control Debate

[Journeyman]

You can't just make a claim, be asked to support it, and support it by making the claim again.

  :rofl:

 

[Container]

You can't just make a claim, be asked to support it, and support it by making the claim again. I asked for some evidence.

Here's some to suggest that you're wrong... (from a 2005 National Post article http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-138185.html)

"Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime"

- Vancouver Police, Strategic plan 2004-08

Seriously. Of the firearms crime im investigating at this moment none of them are "smuggled". Do you not think maybe what works for crime in VANCOUVER doesnt work elsewhere?

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2007/feature_focus_2007_e.html

The two main sources of firearms for crime in Canada are smuggled from the states or stolen. It s not up for discussion. Its geographic dependant- but stolen firearms are a huge source and concern.

 

[ballz]

Like I said, this is a sideshow to the actual point, but interesting none the less.

The two main sources of firearms for crime in Canada are smuggled from the states or stolen. It s not up for discussion. Its geographic dependant- but stolen firearms are a huge source and concern.

I've no doubt those are the two main sources. What I question is which one is primary and which is secondary. Especially when it comes to handguns, everything I've read is that it is largely (like, 90%+) smuggled in from the US. Knowing how large of a source pillaged firearms are (and I mean hard data) would allow me to weigh the risks associated with leaving the firearms in place. Because my perception is that the risks associated of leaving all those legally stored firearms in place were not very high.

Seriously. Of the firearms crime im investigating at this moment none of them are "smuggled". Do you not think maybe what works for crime in VANCOUVER doesnt work elsewhere?

Of course its different geographically, but from what I've read the urban areas that have good access to the border show similar trends. Vancouver, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, and even New Brunswick as of left. It's no secret out west that organized crime is running between Vancouver and Calgary, and Calgary and Edmonton.

 

[Robert0288]

Controversy over High River gun seizures continues
Firearms law expert says RCMP had no legal right to seize lawfully stored guns
Reported by Lasia Kretzel
First Posted: Jun 29, 2013 8:28am | Last Updated: Jun 29, 2013 12:35pm
Change text size: + -

While just over a third of High River’s 13,000 residents affected by the Alberta floods are allowed to return Saturday, debate is still swirling around the seizure of firearms from evacuated homes.

RCMP said they searched all 5,000 homes after the bodies of three victims were discovered in the river and several other people were reported missing. The goal, according to RCMP, was to search for bodies or missing people. However they also removed an undisclosed number of firearms from the homes, a decision that angered some residents and gun rights advocates.

“We surmised that we were in a mass casualty situation and we were conducting a search and rescue operation and entered the home under that authority,” said inspector Garrett Woolsey with the High River RCMP detachment.

“Also there was a local state of emergency that also supports us in that endeavor. We didn’t seize them for criminal purposes. We simply secured them for public safety,” he said.

Legislation gives police additional powers during a state of emergency to enter homes. Woolsey said forced entry was only used as a last resort and locksmiths were called in to help.

But lawyer and Canadian firearms law expert Solomon Friedman said even if RCMP has the legal authority to enter the homes, they do not have the power to remove property.

“[State of Emergency] doesn’t give them carte blanche to take whatever items, temporarily or otherwise, because they deem it advisable,” Friedman said. “As long as they’re stored in conformance with the regulation they’re like any other private property and can’t be disturbed.”

Federal regulations says stored long guns, like rifles and shotguns, must be unloaded and disabled, either by a trigger lock, cable lock or by removing the bolt. Restricted weapons, like handguns, must be stored and locked in a secure room, safe or vault.

It is unclear whether all the confiscated firearms violated these requirements but may become apparent if residents are charged with improper storage.

Friedman believes residents likely moved their firearms out of flood prone areas of the home, such as the basement, which is why they were out in the open.

Once all residents were evacuated RCMP created a perimeter around the town to monitor the situation and prevent residents from re-entering their homes.

“There is no special permission that the RCMP has to go door to door and seize them. It becomes as civil break and enter at that point,” Solomon said.

However, Woolsey said RCMP were acting within the law, adding that the firearms are being stored at the High River RCMP detachment.

But Friedman asked why other harmful items like knives and bow and arrows were not removed.

RCMP said they removed firearms which were in “plain view” but Woolsey didn’t know if that was the case in every instance.

“They are being logged and recorded and will be returned to their owner in due course, as soon as we can, once this disaster is over.”

He added that RCMP don’t yet have a procedure of how they will return the firearms to their rightful owners or what could happen to family heirlooms including grandfathered prohibited firearms.

Friedman fears the government will require proof of ownership, something some gun owners won’t be able to provide for long guns and heirlooms. Restricted firearms will be registered with the federal government.

On Friday, the Prime Minister weighed in, asking RCMP to return the firearms as soon as possible.

Friedman said issues of firearms seizures will not be resolved by suing the RCMP, who’s funding ultimately comes from the public purse, but through changing the law.

“People need to respectfully pressure their politicians to reform and repeal the firearms act,” said Friedman. “For as long as it is a criminal offence to peacefully possess a firearm without licence or authorization from the government, gun owners will be treated like presumptive criminals. Their homes will be entered without warrant and their property will be seized without due cause.”

source: http://ckom.com/story/controversy-over-high-river-gun-seizures-continues/117917

This was a good article for me up until the last quote "For as long as it is a criminal offence to peacefully possess a firearm without licence or authorization from the government, gun owners will be treated like presumptive criminals." I have absolutely zero problem with the licensing aspect.  It forces people to prove their knowledge, safe handling and rules about proper storage and transportation laws.

 

[Container]

that lawyer needs to go back to school. Plain view doctrine has been enshrined in common law forever.

I do agree the laws need changing though.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>HAHAHAHA,...........Hope you like paying a crap-load more in taxes then..........no wait, you're Mr. Anti-tax, civil servant hater.....

A change of enforcement priorities would probably serve.

 

[JorgSlice]

Alberta Emergency management Act

Powers of Minister in emergency

19(1) On the making of the declaration and for the duration of the state of emergency, the Minister may do all acts and take all necessary proceedings including the following:

...

(c) acquire or utilize any real or personal property considered necessary to prevent, combat or alleviate the effects of an emergency or disaster;

...

(e) control or prohibit travel to or from any area of Alberta;

...

(g) cause the evacuation of persons and the removal of livestock and personal property from any area of Alberta that is or may be affected by a disaster and make arrangements for the adequate care and protection of those persons or livestock and of the personal property;

(h) authorize the entry into any building or on any land, without warrant, by any person in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program

Local Authority

28 - No action lies against a local authority or a person acting under the local authority's direction or authorisation for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under this Act or regulations during a state of local emergency.

According to the AEMA, they're in the clear. Acting in good faith etc.

 

[Rick Goebel]

Container said:

"http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2007/feature_focus_2007_e.html

The two main sources of firearms for crime in Canada are smuggled from the states or stolen. It s not up for discussion. Its geographic dependant- but stolen firearms are a huge source and concern."

I saw nothing in that article that suggested that domestically stolen guns are a large source of illegal weapons.  All it says is that this is one of two main sources.  It doesn't contradict a 97/3 split.

 

[Eaglelord17]

that lawyer needs to go back to school. Plain view doctrine has been enshrined in common law forever.

I do agree the laws need changing though.

Plain view doctrine only applies to illegal items, if the firearms are legally owned and in compliance with the law then the police have no right to take them (just because there in plain view on a bed/table/etc. as long as it has the trigger lock means it is still legally stored (for non-restricted firearms)). Doesn't matter what justification they apply to it, the police technically committed theft. Just because they intend to give it back doesn't mean it wasn't stolen by the police in the first place. If someone takes a car out for a joyride and brings it back it still was stolen. Frankly whoever made the call to take the firearms out of homes (if the firearms were in compliance with the law) should be fired and charged to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Alberta Emergency management Act

According to the AEMA, they're in the clear. Acting in good faith etc.

And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.

 

[jpjohnsn]

That's twice you've posted crap just to hear yourself talk.

Either contribute with factual information and discuss it like an adult or leave the thread to people that know what they are talking about.

Your emotional babbling makes you sound like a thirteen year old girl with too much candy in her system.

Your input is noted.  You love swooping in and dumping on people in an attempt to shut down and/or chase people from discussions and that has become tiresome.  If you don't like my posts, don't read them.  Too simple.

As long as the legal owners get their firearms back when this is all over, I think the RCMP acted responsibly to protect the public (which includes the owners of those guns).  Don't agree? Fine, I can respect that even if I don't agree with it. 

But if you think you bashing about, acting like a public schoolyard bully constitutes an adult contribution to a conversation, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.

Cause nobodies ever been shot with a f@&$ing TV, that's why.................this is getting to be a Monty Python skit.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Cause nobodies ever been shot with a f@&$ing TV, that's why.................this is getting to be a Monty Python skit.

If you want to reduce this to the  F*&^&*ing playground, by all means lets do so.  The quoted reference gives no mention of people being shot, in fact it doesn't mention dangerous personal property at all.  Read the f*&^%ing thing.  Out to you. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yea, you're right.

Bowing out,..carry on with the conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[Container]

Plain view doctrine only applies to illegal items, if the firearms are legally owned and in compliance with the law then the police have no right to take them (just because there in plain view on a bed/table/etc. as long as it has the trigger lock means it is still legally stored (for non-restricted firearms)). Doesn't matter what justification they apply to it, the police technically committed theft. Just because they intend to give it back doesn't mean it wasn't stolen by the police in the first place. If someone takes a car out for a joyride and brings it back it still was stolen. Frankly whoever made the call to take the firearms out of homes (if the firearms were in compliance with the law) should be fired and charged to the fullest extent of the law.

The statements have indicated they were improperly stored. I know lots of cops dont know the rules. Lots do. No one has provided any evidence that the firearms were seized while properly stored. Not only that, jail house lawyer  ;D , but in order to commit an offence, outside of negligence related offences, requires a knowledge component. Acting in good faith they would have made a mistake, one they would be civilly liable for- not criminally. The police are acting in good faith under color of right that they believed that the firearms are being stored improperly. So they did not "theft" anything. That said the test for "plain view" does vary from province to province.

AND plain view doctrine applies to evidence of an offence as well as anything else subject to seizure.

 

[Container]

And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.

The firearms were seized with the intention to return them to the owners- from the first statement on.

One of you PLEASE hypothesize what the dark hearted idea behind taking the firearms while the folks were out of town is? Its a huge administrative burden- why would they do that.....just to give them back....? What exactly is the end game you are suggesting? Firearms are valuable and dangerous is why they said they took them temporarily. You dont believe them.....your suggestion of what they were actually doing is?

 

[JorgSlice]

And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.

Para C, they're removing the firearms in prevention of an emergency, one of which be theft of the firearms and another would be criminal use of a stolen firearm.

Para G, they're permitted to seize personal property which ties into Section 28 which states that as long as it is in good faith, they're covered. Have you been out to High River? Farm equipment is rarely kept in the town. Seizing a TV would not be on good faith because it serves no purpose to the greater good of the community or its recovery. Seizing firearms temporarily does.

 

[Kat Stevens]

No conspiracy theory on my part, a conspiracy is well thought out and organized.  If this is such a wicked awesome idea, why wasn't it carried out in all the flood effected areas?  Mine is strictly a personal property POV, these people are having the worst week of their lives, and to top it all off they come home to their shit being gone.  Thanks for helping out, but don't bother stopping by my place in the next emergency, rest assured I'll be gone.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I believe this whole event has been blown totally out of proportion and will hopefully die down in the next few days.  I think the RCMP operated within their mandate to secure the firearms they found lying around houses; however, I think they need to get a new PR team.

Why is it that anytime a government organization gets caught with their pants down they immediately assume the turtle position and try and deflect everything.  Take the reporters into the police station, show them where the guns are and that they have been marked and logged and then let the people be the judge.  A little transparency would go a long way to mitigating this sort of negative backlash.  If it is found that shit went off the rails, apologize for it, take the pee-pee slap and carry on!

 

[Old Sweat]

Good point, 'drew. A bit of communications with the evacuated citizens would have gone a long way. Track down as many folks as possible and determine their addresss and if all the residents are accounted for. Explain that the detachment will be going door to door in search of citizen in distress or deceased. Maybe even take a few observers along, although the worrywarts would have had a field day about liability with that. The force also did not help its image when the members doing the searching were in what to the average citizen would have seemed like full SWAT gear. Given the stress the folks were under and the lack of information given them, along with the manner in which what was a mission of mercy was executed and then misdescribed, we should not be surprised that citizens could and would react as they did.

As an aside, in my dealings with the RCMP at the national level in some national security issues before I retired, the overriding consideration among senior members of the force too often was not what will work best, but rather what will be the effect on our image?