The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28, 2013, 06:13 PM   #1
Geoff7
Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 29
RCMP seize ‘substantial’ number of firearms from evacuated homes

High River residents furious after RCMP seize ‘substantial’ number of firearms from evacuated homes

I'm not sure if L&CR is the right board for this, as it doesn't pertain directly to U.S. law. Sorry in advance if I put this in the wrong place.

This is eerily similar to what happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. My two takeaways from this:

1) This is what you get when you have gun registration. The police know exactly where to go to take your gun(s).

2) If forced to evacuate, take your guns.

Sgt. Brian Topham. “People have a significant amount of money invested in firearms … so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”

So I take it they're also impounding vehicles and setting up a flat screen TV storage area?

Finally, this comment from a resident: "This is the reason the U.S. has the right to bear arms,” said Charles Timpano, pointing to the group of Mounties.

Damn straight.
Geoff7 is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 06:41 PM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Quote:
"This is the reason the U.S. has the right to bear arms,” said Charles Timpano, pointing to the group of Mounties.
Unfortunately, Canada does not. They made their own choices when writing their constitution, and they made their own choices when approving the passage of laws allowing this. None of this started yesterday.

That said, this subforum is not exclusive to American law; Canada's gun laws and their enforcement mechanisms are a valid topic.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 07:10 AM   #3
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,957
Evacuating your firearms while evacuating your home is a good idea for yet another reason - potential looting. Guns are mighty attractive to looters and will be among the first items removed from your help in these scenarios if the looting becomes prevalent.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 08:37 AM   #4
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 199
I guess if I had to evacuate and couldn't take all of my guns, I'd prefer to be able to go and get them back from the police than lose them to looters. Which is how I read it, anyway. Sounded like the RCMP is securing them from looters.
WyMark is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 09:03 AM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Quote:
Sounded like the RCMP is securing them from looters.
That could be, but what guarantee do the owners have that the authorities will return them? If the guns aren't returned, what recourse do the owners have?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 09:46 AM   #6
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,285
It appears that the RCMP will not be giving them back easily...

Quote:
Sgt. Topham added that the guns will be returned to owners after they are allowed back in town, if they can provide proof of ownership.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...se-flood-video

They confiscated the guns to 'protect them', but if a person's 'proof of ownership' goes downriver with his house, how exactly are they supposed to 'prove' ownership?
Salmoneye is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 10:42 AM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 10,564
Proof of ownership?

Now, just what might that be? Could it be doublespeak for "proof of a good reason" (acceptable to the govt) of/for ownership?

Don't they have gun registration in Canada? Didn't the police use it to know which homes had guns that might need securing?

Ok, reading the article (and comments), it appears that what happened is the police "swept" every house in the evacuated town (looking for bodies, etc.), and picked up any/all guns found "lying around".

According to one comment, they did not remove any guns from secure storage, and did not "go through anyone's sock drawer" looking for guns.

Now, you are, of course, free to believe as much, or as little as you like about that, but it still leaves my question.

If your gun is registered, how is that NOT proof of ownership?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 10:51 AM   #8
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
Darn. They're out of tin foil at my local store. Some of you guys must be hoarding.





Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 11:09 AM   #9
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 325
is there more to this story than the article presents... is that SOP for all RCMP across Canada in times of disaster to remove all guns? If not, what is the relationship between the RCMP and the towns citizens?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 12:38 PM   #10
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
I'm confused on a couple of points -

- It's a disaster. Do the residents that are leaving NOT take their guns with them?

- The RCMP collects the guns from the evacuated homes. Isn't that better than the looters and meth heads collecting the guns?

- The RCMP returns the guns if you show proof of ownership. Isn't that better than if someone else simply shows up and says "Oh yeah, that's my gun"?


Except for people leaving their guns when they evacuate, everything else in the scenario sounds like it's exactly what I'd want to happen.


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 12:53 PM   #11
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Except for people leaving their guns when they evacuate, everything else in the scenario sounds like it's exactly what I'd want to happen.
What gives the RCMP the right to go stomping through people’s homes looking for anything, let alone firearms. Maybe warrantless search and seizure is legal in Canada? I don’t really know for sure. Law Enforcement needs a search warrant, or at the least probable cause to get into my home. They better have one or the other, otherwise things would get ugly on my end.
Mike38 is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 01:28 PM   #12
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
SgtLumpy, if all the RCMP require for proof is that Gun A was taken from Home B, and the person claiming the gun is the resident of Home B, that's fine.

If the RCMP wants receipts or transfer paperwork, particularly from people who have heirloom guns or who have had damage to homes and files, that's something else.

Since I don't know which is the case, I am not going to get worked up about this.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 05:07 PM   #13
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
Quote:
Law Enforcement needs a search warrant, or at the least probable cause to get into my home. They better have one or the other, otherwise things would get ugly on my end.
Exactly what are you going to do, Mike?


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 05:12 PM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
Doesn't Canada have a firearms registry? Suppose some of these people are among those who (allegedly) declined to register their firearms.

What then?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 05:16 PM   #15
SDC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2001
Location: People's Republic of Kanada
Posts: 1,619
"Securing homes from looters" is a hogwash answer, and everyone knows it; the RCMP were stationed at all entrance/exit points to the town, and had full access to go through looking for anyone moving anything in or out. Did they also "secure" all the big-screen TVs in town?
__________________
Gun control in Canada: making the streets safer for rapists, muggers, and other violent criminals since 1936.
SDC is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 08:36 PM   #16
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 325
Quote:
Doesn't Canada have a firearms registry? Suppose some of these people are among those who (allegedly) declined to register their firearms.
Good point, this goes in line with my question above......

Quote:
Unfortunately, Canada does not. They made their own choices when writing their constitution, and they made their own choices when approving the passage of laws allowing this. None of this started yesterday.
I understand this situation is about more than just the guns confisticated, but I find it ironic for Canadians to even gripe about police confisticating their guns in any circumstance.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 08:50 PM   #17
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 119
All I know is Sgt. Preston of the Yukon and his wonderdog King would never have done this. Neither would Dudley Do-Rght.
horselips is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 08:59 PM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter reads similar to our 4th Amendment:

Quote:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
The courts there have outlined the contours of that to be very much like our own expectations. As such, I don't see the actions of the RCMP passing muster here.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 09:13 PM   #19
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
What happens when the RCMP enter's an evacuated home to confiscate guns, and they find something illegal. Like a pot plant or something. How do the RCMP know where the firearms are stored? If it's too dangerous for the residents to stay... why is the RCMP there? As someone else intelligently asked... Why dont they save big screen tv's or sterio equipment. This whole thing smell like bacalau.

Just asking ya know?
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 10:10 PM   #20
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
Quote:
As someone else intelligently asked... Why dont they save big screen tv's or sterio equipment.
Others have asked but it wasn't the least bit intelligent.

Meth heads looting your home. Would you rather they take your TV or your guns?

Some of the assumptions posed in this thread are hilarious. Do you think the RCMP staged the disaster too? Just so they could go in and take people's guns?

A couple of you guys are embarassing.

Later on this tinfoil hat thread...


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 10:37 PM   #21
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtLumpy
Others have asked but it wasn't the least bit intelligent.

Meth heads looting your home. Would you rather they take your TV or your guns?

Some of the assumptions posed in this thread are hilarious. Do you think the RCMP staged the disaster too? Just so they could go in and take people's guns?

A couple of you guys are embarassing.

Later on this tinfoil hat thread...
Sorry, I don't share your view. An illegal search and seizure is an illegal search and seizure. The business about returning them "with proof of ownership" is just another layer of bovine excrement on top of an already smelly heap.

The town is empty. The RCMP have all the time in the world to root through people's houses and steal "secure" people's firearms. While doing that, they COULD just carry a little notebook and write down the address, and the make, model and serial number of each firearm "secured" from that address. Then the only documentation a resident would need would be a driver's license or any other photo ID linking them to that address.

And since the RCMP controls the town, there shouldn't be any meth heads on a shopping spree. Large screen televisions cost more than a lot of firearms -- if the RCMP is out to secure personal property from looters, they should be securing the most valuable items first. Demonizing guns and claiming they have to be seized while ignoring more valuable property is just buying into the paranoia that guns are inherently evil.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 10:43 AM   #22
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,123
SgtLumpy, I’m curious as to why you feel the need to defend illegal actions such as the RCMP unwarranted search and seizure? If said actions were not illegal, please explain why they were not. I’m a simple man, and need simple, easy to understand answers.

As Tom Servo very clearly pointed out, the Canadian Charter says:

Quote:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
As far as I can tell, what the RCMP did was illegal, but maybe to Canadian citizens the RCMP actions were reasonable? I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. There is no doubt in my mind if it was done in the USA it would be unreasonable.
Mike38 is offline  
Old June 30, 2013, 10:51 AM   #23
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Quote:
As far as I can tell, what the RCMP did was illegal, but maybe to Canadian citizens the RCMP actions were reasonable?
That's the question. The answer will show significant cultural differences.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 09:49 AM   #24
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Exactly what are you going to do, Mike?
He might, perhaps, defend his home and family from an illegal, unconstitutional search and seizure. The fact that it might be law enforcement officers under the colour of authority conducting the illegal search doesn't reduce his right to do so even an iota.

The fact that you seem to have zero issue with the enforcement of a blatant 4th Amendment violation is quite troubling to me - because I know you aren't the only law enforcement officer who feels that way. Put enough of you together, and the Constitution is as valuable as yesterday's newspaper.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 10:02 AM   #25
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
On second thought...

If the police (RCMP in this case) were to observe signs of looting or B&E at an evacuated house, I could see the rationale for allowing them to search, and to secure any unsecured firearms etc.

But it sounds more like they just went house to house and conducted preemptive searches, and I DO have a problem with that.
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 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13681 seconds with 7 queries