The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 1, 2013, 10:11 AM   #26
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
But it sounds more like they just went house to house and conducted preemptive searches, and I DO have a problem with that.
I think you're exactly right. And I think they started and ended those searches with their registration list.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 11:51 AM   #27
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
The fact that you seem to have zero issue with the enforcement of a blatant 4th Amendment violation is quite troubling to me
We're talking about Canada here. The American Constitution doesn't apply. Lots of folks have gotten into real trouble assuming that the rights protected by our laws are also respected abroad.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 12:58 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,824
Devil in the details, which, we don't have...

The Canadian constitution may protect their citizens from unreasonable searches, BUT, what is reasonable?

I doubt that you will find any judge or magistrate on either side of the border who would think that requiring a warrant for each house to be searched, when the town is evacuated due to a natural disaster, AND that the searches are being done to ensure they got everybody out, is reasonable or prudent.

Now, the fact that during the search for people, bodies, gas leaks, or other dangerous situations, the RCMP picking up loose guns and holding them for their owner's return might just be considered reasonable and prudent.

Who's viewpoint is right will be decided by a Canadian court, at some later date, I'm sure.

This is NOT the same sort of situation we had during Katrina. There we had cops going to people's homes, WHILE PEOPLE WERE THERE and taking their guns away. Quite a different situation than police picking up loose guns after the people have evacuated. Quite different, beyond the fact that one was in the US and the other in Canada.

Not saying it was the right thing to do, only that it may have been allowable under Canadian law, even though, based on the scanty information we currently have, it upset a number of residents.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 06:05 PM   #29
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 549
To play devil's advocate.

It's pretty clear that securing the firearms from looters (if that is what they were doing) isn't a matter of securing valuables so much as it's a matter of securing potentially dangerous items. A methhead getting your flatscreen isn't a big issue. There's not much he can do with it except sell it. A methhead getting your gun (or a whole town full of them) is a bit of a bigger problem.

Also, like 44 AMP, said. They allegedly weren't going around specifically looking for guns. They went to ALL homes looking for bodies and survivors in need of help (which, after a disaster like that, I think would qualify as reasonable cause even in the U.S.) and were told to simply pick up whatever guns they happened to see. Not cracking open safes, not cutting open your mattress, not pulling up your floorboards. Just whatever was in plain view.
And frankly, if there's a natural disaster, with all the looters and criminals that entails and you abandon your home for who knows how long and just leave your guns lying around where anyone could clearly see them. You really have no grounds to complain when you find they're not there upon your return.

So really the only potential issue I see here is what would count as "proof of ownership" to get them back.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 08:32 PM   #30
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickel Plated
Also, like 44 AMP, said. They allegedly weren't going around specifically looking for guns. They went to ALL homes looking for bodies and survivors in need of help (which, after a disaster like that, I think would qualify as reasonable cause even in the U.S.) and were told to simply pick up whatever guns they happened to see. Not cracking open safes, not cutting open your mattress, not pulling up your floorboards. Just whatever was in plain view.
And frankly, if there's a natural disaster, with all the looters and criminals that entails and you abandon your home for who knows how long and just leave your guns lying around where anyone could clearly see them. You really have no grounds to complain when you find they're not there upon your return.
What article stated that the RCMP was looking for bodies and survivors in need of help? Even IF that might be true (although I question its validity), it wouldn't qualify as reasonable cause in the U.S. if the people locked their doors when they left. That would mean that, to enter, the police/RCMP would have to commit a felony in order to even gain entry into the houses. And the article cited in the opening post confirms that's exactly what they did -- broke into locked houses. (That's what "forced entry" means.)

Secondly, exactly where was it reported that the RCMP picked up only firearms that were in plain sight? I will assume they didn't crack any gun safes (but one should never assume), but most people simply don't leave guns lying around in plain sight, especially if evacuating home for an indeterminate period of time. Certainly not a whole town full of people. So that strongly suggests that, at the least, the RCMP went rooting around in people's closets, attics and basements looking for guns.

If you have specific, reliable citations to prove me wrong, please post the links.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; July 1, 2013 at 08:38 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 2, 2013, 08:56 AM   #31
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,845
Quote:
but most people simply don't leave guns lying around in plain sight
You might be surprised. I have seen many a gun leaned up against a nice safe with the safe door cracked open an inch or two. I think most would secure a little better if evacuating.

It isn't practical for a "collector" to evacuate all their weapons. I could do it with ease today, but five years ago It would have taken me considerable time to do so.

I bet this story is getting more play in the US than Canada. There is a cultural difference.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 01:16 AM   #32
Geoff7
Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 29
The Calgary Herald has a short follow up piece on the fallout from the gun seizures. Specifically, "the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP will examine whether officers broke any laws or breached force policies."

Also, of interest might be this resident's quote that may answer some of the speculation earlier in this thread:

Greg Kvisle has reclaimed two guns that he says were hidden in a basement storage room when he evacuated.

“I’m not buying this story from the police about taking firearms left on the kitchen table,” Kvisle said.

“The truth is they kicked down locked doors and went digging through people’s closets.”


If his experience is anything close to typical, that's a far cry from simply securing guns sitting in plain sight on the kitchen table or on a bed.
Geoff7 is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 09:52 AM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff7
If his experience is anything close to typical, that's a far cry from simply securing guns sitting in plain sight on the kitchen table or on a bed.
I think we all knew that already, but thanks for the confirmation.

The fairy tale that an entire town of several thousand residents ALL evacuated and left piles of firearms lying around their houses never passed the stink test.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 10:08 AM   #34
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Awaiting response from SgtLumpy...
MLeake is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07905 seconds with 9 queries