Time to Arm Cenotaph Guard? (split from Domestic Terrorism)

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The above post was removed initially as it identified the Honour Guard before any details were know as to seriousness of Cpl Cirillo's condition. 

Photos are now appearing all over the media of the days events.  Some even capture the Shooter getting into his car at the War Memorial to drive to Parliament Hill around the corner.

I have a question: I keep seeing this photo showing two soldiers.

I assume the premise is to have more eyes.

What happened to the second soldier?

I don't recall hearing reports of him returning fire.

Please don't tell me that after what happened in Montreal that these guys were carrying unloaded weapons?


Matthew.

 

[Jed]

I have a question: I keep seeing this photo showing two soldiers.

I assume the premise is to have more eyes.

What happened to the second soldier?

I don't recall hearing reports of him returning fire.

Please don't tell me that after what happened in Montreal that these guys were carrying unloaded weapons?


Matthew.

Hey, its the Canadian thing to do.  We sent our troops into Gulf War one with 1 magazine of rounds for their C7. We walk around the Syrian country side without our sidearms (when other countries are armed) Wouldn't want to appear unnecessarily warlike.

 

[George Wallace]

I have a question: I keep seeing this photo showing two soldiers.

I assume the premise is to have more eyes.

What happened to the second soldier?

I don't recall hearing reports of him returning fire.

Please don't tell me that after what happened in Montreal that these guys were carrying unloaded weapons?


Matthew.

This is a ceremonial duty, not an operational or security detail.  Canadian Armed Forces members, unlike the police forces are not permitted to carry loaded weapons at all times while on duty under normal circumstances.  When the Canadian Armed Forces are called out to carry loaded weapons, then you know that shyte has really hit the fan.  Until such time as that happens, then it is the Law Enforcement Agencies, the Police, who are authorized to carry loaded guns.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

This is a ceremonial duty, not an operational or security detail.  Canadian Armed Forces members, unlike the police forces are not permitted to carry loaded weapons at all times while on duty under normal circumstances.  When the Canadian Armed Forces are called out to carry loaded weapons, then you know that shyte has really hit the fan.  Until such time as that happens, then it is the Law Enforcement Agencies, the Police, who are authorized to carry loaded guns.

I understand that may have been appropriate in previous years, but given today's threat environment and what had already happened in Montreal, this seems like complete negligence which resulted in the loss of life of a good young man and father.  Whomever is responsible for the decision needs to take a trip to Hamilton and explain their logic to his son....because if they can't do that with a straight a face, then it was a pure-BS political optics decision and we as a society need to talk about why it was made and damn-well fix it.

As a civilian, I don't think you guys are obligated to be targets to fifth column terrorists.  On the contrary, I believe we as a civilian body have an obligation to provide you with the authorization to use deadly force if you come under attack on our soil, regardless of the role you happen to be in at that moment.

Bottom Line:  The world has changed and you guys shouldn't be wearing a bullseye on home turf without any means of protecting yourselves....I hope it doesn't take further casualties before a policy change is made.



M.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In all my years I never agreed with the guards being unarmed or without ammunition. It's a mindset thing that needs to be changed. The days of only frontline warfare is over. There are simple procedures to allow a full mag on the weapon without a round in the chamber or at the very least a full mag in a pouch on the belt. The ROE will be very simple: Engage only a direct threat armed with a weapon or similar.

Yes it increases the risks somewhat, but we have seen the price to do otherwise.

 

[The_Falcon]

This is a ceremonial duty, not an operational or security detail.  Canadian Armed Forces members, unlike the police forces are not permitted to carry loaded weapons at all times while on duty under normal circumstances.  When the Canadian Armed Forces are called out to carry loaded weapons, then you know that shyte has really hit the fan.  Until such time as that happens, then it is the Law Enforcement Agencies, the Police, who are authorized to carry loaded guns.

Actually all on duty CAF members can in fact carry and use firearms http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps-spcca/cew-ai/pol-aut-eng.htm

Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law

Protection of persons acting under authority

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

as a private person,
as a peace officer or public officer,
in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
by virtue of his office, is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

PART III - FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS

Exempted Persons

Public officers

117.07 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section 117.1, no public officer is guilty of an offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the public officer

possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance in the course of or for the purpose of the public officer’s duties or employment;
manufactures or transfers, or offers to manufacture or transfer, a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment;
exports or imports a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment;
exports or imports a component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into an automatic firearm in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment;
in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment, alters a firearm so that it is capable of, or manufactures or assembles any firearm with intent to produce a firearm that is capable of, discharging projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger;
fails to report the loss, theft or finding of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance that occurs in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment or the destruction of any such thing in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment; or
alters a serial number on a firearm in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment.
Definition of “public officer”

(2) In this section, "public officer" means

a peace officer;
a member of the Canadian Forces or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada who is attached or seconded to any of the Canadian Forces;
an operator of a museum established by the Chief of the Defence Staff or a person employed in any such museum;
a member of a cadet organization under the control and supervision of the Canadian Forces;
a person training to become a police officer or a peace officer under the control and supervision of
(i) a police force, or
a police academy or similar institution designated by the Attorney General of Canada or the lieutenant governor in council of a province;
a member of a visiting force, within the meaning of section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, who is authorized under paragraph 14(a) of that Act to possess and carry explosives, ammunition and firearms;
a person, or member of a class of persons, employed in the federal public administration or by the government of a province or municipality who is prescribed to be a public officer; or
the Commissioner of Firearms, the Registrar, a chief firearms officer, any firearms officer and any person designated under section 100 of the Firearms Act.

emphasis mine.

CAF members have the legal/authority via the Criminal Code and Firearms Act.  It's the Commanders in the CAF and internal policies that prohibit it.

 

[Remius]

I understand that may have been appropriate in previous years, but given today's threat environment and what had already happened in Montreal, this seems like complete negligence which resulted in the loss of life of a good young man and father.  Whomever is responsible for the decision needs to take a trip to Hamilton and explain their logic to his son....because if they can't do that with a straight a face, then it was a pure-BS political optics decision and we as a society need to talk about why it was made and damn-well fix it.

As a civilian, I don't think you guys are obligated to be targets to fifth column terrorists.  On the contrary, I believe we as a civilian body have an obligation to provide you with the authorization to use deadly force if you come under attack on our soil, regardless of the role you happen to be in at that moment.

Bottom Line:  The world has changed and you guys shouldn't be wearing a bullseye on home turf without any means of protecting yourselves....I hope it doesn't take further casualties before a policy change is made.



M.

With that logic (and I'm not saying it is wrong) then all CAF members while on duty should be armed with live ammo.  WO Vincent was in uniform and was a target.

Ceremonial Sentries be they at the cenotaph or rideau hall, as has been mentioned, are performing a ceremonial role.  for anyone who has done it before, you don't exactly have situational awareness.  You are at attentione or at ease the whole time with the occasional "beat" patrol.  At RH at least you either have a wall or sentry box/gate behind you but at the cenotaph anyone can sneak behind any of them.  Imagine someone coming from behind, grabbing a rifle while standing at ease.  Bad enough without it having a full mag.

Arming them will really achieve very little given their ceremonial duty and weapons either being at the shoulder or at the order.  Reaction, posture etc etc is not very condusive if you are the target of an attack.  As well, firing a C-7 in that kind of public space when defending yourself or others is risky without the approriate training. 

Years ago (they might still be doing it) we had a member in CF order nearby to ensure the sentries were not harrassed etc etc.  Armed with a cell phone.  The more logical solution to current events would be to have an armed guard watching them.  Be it an MP, cop or whoever.  Discreetly out of the way with a pistol.  While it may not prevent someone from doing what they did it might certainly end it sooner.

 

[cupper]

Actually all on duty CAF members can in fact carry and use firearms http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps-spcca/cew-ai/pol-aut-eng.htm
emphasis mine.

CAF members have the legal/authority via the Criminal Code and Firearms Act.  It's the Commanders in the CAF and internal policies that prohibit it.

Not to pick nits, but the cited information is dealing with two separate issues, the use of force, and violations of the firearms section of the CCC and Firearms Act. It does not provide for authorization of members of the CAF to carry firearms in their duties as a member of the CAF.

I have to agree with those who are against arming service members as part of their daily duties, if for the only reason that when we have gotten to that point, the a-holes have won.

 

[The_Falcon]

Not to pick nits, but the cited information is dealing with two separate issues, the use of force, and violations of the firearms section of the CCC and Firearms Act. It does not provide for authorization of members of the CAF to carry firearms in their duties as a member of the CAF.

Yes it does, unless CAF members have started to be required to have PALS and ATC in the last two years.  As many gun owner have pointed out, the way the law is written and worded EVERYONE in the country is barred from owning/using/transporting (etc). firearms by default, unless they have the appropriate licence and/or ATC, or they are exempted by law.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html

85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm

87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of

(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and

(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.


(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

And to reiterate

117.07 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section 117.1, no public officer is guilty of an offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the public officer

(a) possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance in the course of or for the purpose of the public officer’s duties or employment;

2) In this section, “public officer” means

(a) a peace officer;

(b) a member of the Canadian Forces or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada who is attached or seconded to any of the Canadian Forces;

I omitted several sections and clauses for brevitiy, but as you can see, it's quite simple.  NO ONE in Canada (including CAF members), can do anything in relation to firearms unless they either a) have the requisite licence/authorization b) are exempted from the law, and therefore don't require a licence/authorization  Sec. 117.07 is that exemption and it's pretty black and white.  Like I alluded to, this is the foundation law, DND/CAF policies go off of this, and get into the specifics.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, Cupper is mostly right on this one.

The first provision you cite, HM, is for use of force. While a member of the CF is by definition a public officer under that section, it only applies in situations of enforcement of law, and no CF member, other than the Provost-Marchal branch, have law enforcement as their duty in Canada - unless specifically called out in aid to civil power.

For the second provision to apply (exemption from firearm laws), the CF member must be required (by the CF) to carry the weapons for the purpose of carrying out his/her duty - not for personal use going to and from his place of duty - not for self protection (like actual Law enforcement officer) unless that self protection be required by his duty. That is why in the CF we keep our weapons in armouries and depots and otherwise under lock and key only to be issued when the very task at hand require their use and then retrieve them immediately after. Our own internal rules spell out where and when we can carry them to perform our duties - and then to which extent. And that is the only extent to which the exemption would apply. Anything outside such use would make the CF member subject to application of the law.

That is why, for instance, ceremonial guards can carry weapons to attend, say, a member funeral, but on such occasion will only be issued with the blanks they need for gun salute, while a marching ceremonial guard (to greet a foreign dignitary) will be issued no ammunition of any sort. A Force protection group on the other hand, such as the armed guard we have onboard ships when visiting civilian ports these days, would have both weapons and ammunition and rules of engagement on when to use them. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I thought I heard that the CDS was 'reviewing' the use of the Ceremonial Guard. It is a public relations function - it began, in the 1950s, as a combined project by the City of Ottawa and the (then regular force) Regiment of Canadian Guards ...

... it was, always, more about PR than about any uniquely Canadian military (or parliamentary) tradition. The custom of mounting guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier did not begin until 2007, some years after the Tomb was dedicated in 2000.

Personally, I think changing the guard on the Hill, the 'nerve centre' of our democracy, is a good tradition; the symbolism is 'right.'  Ditto for mounting guard at both Rideau Hall and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But I see the CDS' immediate dilemma: is he exposing CF members to an unnecessary personal risk for what is, essentially, a PR task?

There are, now and again, calls to mount that guard 24/7 and 365 ... but I wonder if anyone has considered the several 'bills' ~ personnel costs, construction engineering to light and heat the area at 0300 Hrs in mid January, etc. For now, mounting guard from 0900 Hrs to 1700 Hrs from, say, the Victoria Day weekend until 11 Nov, is 'doable,' but, as we have just seen, it is not without potential risk, especially of a copycat. The obvious solution is to give the CF legal jurisdiction over the Confederation Square site, allowing armed CF MPs to patrol the area, day and night, year round, but especially when the guard is mounted. There's a bill for that, too.

 

[Remius]

I thought I heard that the CDS was 'reviewing' the use of the Ceremonial Guard. It is a public relations function - it began, in the 1950s, as a combined project by the City of Ottawa and the (then regular force) Regiment of Canadian Guards ...

... it was, always, more about PR than about any uniquely Canadian military (or parliamentary) tradition. The custom of mounting guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier did not begin until 2007, some years after the Tomb was dedicated in 2000.

Personally, I think changing the guard on the Hill, the 'nerve centre' of our democracy, is a good tradition; the symbolism is 'right.'  Ditto for mounting guard at both Rideau Hall and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But I see the CDS' immediate dilemma: is he exposing CF members to an unnecessary personal risk for what is, essentially, a PR task?

There are, now and again, calls to mount that guard 24/7 and 365 ... but I wonder if anyone has considered the several 'bills' ~ personnel costs, construction engineering to light and heat the area at 0300 Hrs in mid January, etc. For now, mounting guard from 0900 Hrs to 1700 Hrs from, say, the Victoria Day weekend until 11 Nov, is 'doable,' but, as we have just seen, it is not without potential risk, especially of a copycat. The obvious solution is to give the CF legal jurisdiction over the Confederation Square site, allowing armed CF MPs to patrol the area, day and night, year round, but especially when the guard is mounted. There's a bill for that, too.

There are a lot of hands in the pot when t comes to the Tomb and War memorial.  The NCC, Public works, The RCL, Ottawa Police the CAF etc etc.  I remember issues arising from everyone and no one played well together either.

 

[The_Falcon]

Actually, Cupper is mostly right on this one.

The first provision you cite, HM, is for use of force. While a member of the CF is by definition a public officer under that section, it only applies in situations of enforcement of law, and no CF member, other than the Provost-Marchal branch, have law enforcement as their duty in Canada - unless specifically called out in aid to civil power.

I am aware of that, what some people are asking/wondering, were they actually "guarding" the property (as opposed to posing for tourist's pictures). And if they were to actually guard the property (ie enforce say the Ontario Trespass to Property Act or Public Works Protection Act, or whatever the suitable federal equivalent is), could they use force, under the CRIMINAL CODE the answer is yes (which I said). It's DND/CAF laws and regulations that restrict those provisions.  If for example the guard vigil is given the authority (however that is achieved)  to enforce the aforementioned acts (Trespass and Public Works) they would be covered.

For the second provision to apply (exemption from firearm laws), the CF member must be required (by the CF) to carry the weapons for the purpose of carrying out his/her duty - not for personal use going to and from his place of duty - not for self protection (like actual Law enforcement officer) unless that self protection be required by his duty. That is why in the CF we keep our weapons in armouries and depots and otherwise under lock and key only to be issued when the very task at hand require their use and then retrieve them immediately after. Our own internal rules spell out where and when we can carry them to perform our duties - and then to which extent. And that is the only extent to which the exemption would apply. Anything outside such use would make the CF member subject to application of the law.

I never said otherwise, In fact I highlighted the parts that mentioned while on duty/carrying out duty. For the third time, the parts I mentioned give the BROAD FOUNDATION, to allow it, it is DND/CAF (through legislation, rules, policies, orders etc.) that have implaced the restrictions, whether that is done in direct fashion (order explicitly stating no ammo for the guard), or indirect by not having the guard enforce existing (applicable, protection/trespass) laws or not getting the owner of the property, to give their consent for the same. 

 

[The_Falcon]

In regards to my last posts, I am surprised this didn't occur to me earlier ( :facepalm  as it is THE most appropriate CC section in this instance.

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

It would still require, a direction that they be armed to protect themselves while on duty, though.

As to the discussion on, any specific authorities/duties, I believe if there weren't explicit authorities for the guards and the only permitted duty was to pose for pictures, then the CAF and those who mounted the guard were setting themselves up for trouble in the form of litigation and criminal charges, if the guard(s) made an intervention, because they have thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

 

[Remius]

In regards to my last posts, I am surprised this didn't occur to me earlier ( :facepalm  as it is THE most appropriate CC section in this instance.

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

It would still require, a direction that they be armed to protect themselves while on duty, though.

As to the discussion on, any specific authorities/duties, I believe if there weren't explicit authorities for the guards and the only permitted duty was to pose for pictures, then the CAF and those who mounted the guard were setting themselves up for trouble in the form of litigation and criminal charges, if the guard(s) made an intervention, because they have thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

The Guards always have the authority to defend themselves. 

 

[The_Falcon]

The Guards always have the authority to defend themselves.

 

Everyone in the country does actually, I meant the authority to defend themselves with their rifles and ball ammo.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good discussion of the legal issues around arming the Cenotaph guard - splitting into a separate thread to keep the original thread focussed more on the events.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It sucks that people won't be able to wander the Memorial at will, but I think it's time to start using the barriers that are laying all around it. Better they be put together, than laying in the jumbled mess shown in the photos.

If you don't want to arm the guards, there should be armed Parks Service or police personnel patrolling the outer perimeter acting on their own or at the direction of the Guard if someone tries to breech the perimeter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bW4bRcEVEk

Just my  :2c:

 

[bald guy]

This is as much a question as a statement.  I am thinking about the guards regiments at Buckingham Palace.  While there role is largely ceremonial aren't they there to protect the royal family as well?  I believe the Special Branch of Scotland Yard has a role as well.

 

[The_Falcon]

This is as much a question as a statement.  I am thinking about the guards regiments at Buckingham Palace.  While there role is largely ceremonial aren't they there to protect the royal family as well?  I believe the Special Branch of Scotland Yard has a role as well.

I believe that there is something within their mandate that gives them permission to be more "active"  There is plenty of incidents one can find on a google search, showing were they went hands on so to speak.