High River- Police seizure of firearms

[motto (RIP)]

I've been away for a couple of days and so missed some of what is referred to here.
Freedom, particularly when applied to private firearms ownership is a very emotive issue and discussion therefore always apt to boil over.
The fact that some of the thread went 'a little too over the top' is all the more reason for you to stay in there Rob. Your posts were well balanced and reasoned and added some worthy input to the debate.
I for one miss your contribution and am sorry that you left the field.

David

[Marc Montgomery]

Sorry you decided to withdraw, and that you removed your posts with the relevant info. I hope you will change your mind.

I agree with Jon, Im surprised that mainstream media seems to have avoided this story and I really cant understand why

[Harry Moon]

Sun News has been covering it. About the only news channel i take the time anymore to watch. Lots of FOI requests and a pretty steady campaign for a public inquiry.

[chris vickery]

If firearms were owned legally and stored in a lawfull and corect manner, why would they be so concerned about safety?
Just a prime example of how registries can be used against Citizens, I mean Subjects.
I truly believe that the RCMP has, and has always had an agenda towards firearms ownership in Canada.
Read the book on Sam Steele, its in there going all the way back to early settlement in Canada's West. The NWMP at the time were very concerned with the United States mentality towards gun ownership and came up with a mandate to ensure Canada did not become plagued with the gun culture of the American West. Given the fact that this police force is our Federal police, it makes me feel really uneasy about how and why they do things the way they do. It seems a continual list of breaches of Civil rights, internal scandals and execution by Cop. They can't even keep things under control within their organization. Sexual misconduct charges swept under the carpet, tazering to death inoccent civilians, theft, drug use, illegal search and seizures and so on.
And add, most recently reclassifications of legally owned firearms with the stroke of a pen, just because they can.
A group turly out of control and abusing power over Canadians. Maybe its time to re-evaluate and perhaps dis-band. Heck the Canadian Airborne Regiment was dis-banded over a whole lot less....

[chris vickery]

The general consensus in the Canadian firearms community now is that recent decisions regarding certain types of firearms being reclassified is merely a test of the firearms community; the ideology being that the Feds want to test the resolve of the firearms community in a limited area, thusly probing us to see what and how the reaction will be. If the community rolls over and accepts things like seizures, compensation or not, then it lays the groundwork to move on to other types of firearms and pick them off one by one. The main trouble has always been a divided firearms community, each group not really understanding the other, nor representing or standing up for each other.
A blackpowder enthusiast is light years away from the tactical shooting guru yet they are one in the same. A gun is a gun, regardless. Some are just more scary looking than others. It is easy for the media to manipulate the facts to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public. Sooner or later Grampa, if it were up to those in power, your Cooey 22 will be gone too.
And respectfully Guy, I can agree that there are probably many Officers doing a job that they find distastefull, it goes with the territory.
I still contend though that someone or a group from within is pushing for the current tactics being used against law abiding citizens.
Firearms amnesties are for criminals, not for law abiding, licensed taxpayers living in a supposedly free country.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

I've been watching and remaining silent on this topic but there are a few items in your comments that warrant rebuttal. First, you avoid the contradiction that those who use illegal firearms to do criminal acts often get less severe penalties than 'paper' firearms offenses based on improper storage or classification. Why is that? Second, that officers getting no 'satisfaction' out of kicking doors down is irrelevant. The fact is they did and it becomes more a question of why. I couldn't care less how they felt when doing it.

Originally Posted by guyvapeur

There is a similar thread on another forum I read that talks about High River, Alberta. Most subscribers are in the United States and far removed from Canadian laws and practises. I choose not to interfere with their choice of topics or their views relating to their home turf.
I have just come upon this thread and it makes me sick. Rob Love pulled out but I will step in if only for this one line.
Never in my 30 year career with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did I once even get a whiff of directive that would say I should be targeting gun owners.
Then again 17 years in Northern Alberta did not afford me much of a chance to meet any real gun owner....Bull.............I met them all..... and yes there were refusals for ownership when the local decided a 44 magnum was what was need for the gun club he had not yet joined.
There is talks about rights..... Miranda and so on. Bull............I have seen more than enough cases thrown out of court because police had not jumped through every loop and fence the courts, the community and their own administration had put in their way. A list of lawyers was available at every detachment so that we could advise a suspect as to whom could be called. There is no such thing in my experience as to the one phone call. In simple terms, the subject must be afforded the right to retain counsel.....I can think of one case where the court ruled the police had driven by a phone booth thus denying the accused the right to make a phone call ASAP....Case dismissed.
I don't have a full account of what happened at High River but I can say without a doubt the Officer kicking in doors was not getting any satisfaction out of this task.
I will gladly await the findings of any inquiry and see what Sun News has to report when it is all over.
Now I await the tide of rebuttal.

[chris vickery]

"The fact is they did and it becomes more a question of why. I couldn't care less how they felt when doing it."
My sentiments exactly Bruce as per my quote below;
"I still contend though that someone or a group from within is pushing for the current tactics being used against law abiding citizens."
How often in past history have were all heard, "we were only following orders?"
Wake up Canada and really see what is going on here.

[Harry Moon]

The evidence is being assembled and a class action suit is in the works. Check out the National firearms association website or FaceBook.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by guyvapeur

...
Heres a few tidbits I have mulled in the back of my head. The words *Order in Council* come to mind when a device or firearm can be declared prohibited. This, as I understand it means that the Criminal Code allows a group, council or body to define what in fact is prohibited. The RCMP is mandated by law to register certain firearms. This they do on behalf of the people of Canada, as they do all criminal histories.
...
Last I heard, a peace officer upon finding an unsecured firearm may seize the firearm but must within 24 hours (or short time) bring it before a justice of the peace for a decision.
...
There is mention that main stream media is not covering this event and people are perplexed. Maybe there is no story and they can not spin into anything more than it is .
...

Guy, there is a sentiment in the West that the friendly helpful constable is a thing of the past. Many people have lost faith in the Force to control itself and to do the right thing. As far as the reclassification of two types of rifle goes, this started as a dispute between two former business partners. One tried to rat out the other for "illegal" firearms.

What galls most observers is the cloudiness of the reclassification decision. Is this a technical decision based on engineering and mechanical examination, or a political decision based on an administrative process taking advantage of 20-yr old regulations that have not kept pace with the market? Or, did the Force manoeuver the Minister to their purposes?

The Press was closed mouth mute when even the Prime Minister, whose riding includes High River, told the Force to knock it off. Why bother with belongings behind closed doors, when the area is cordoned off airtight? And why go back two and three times to specific houses? Does this not bring the administration of the law into disrepute?

Let's all remember that the Somalia scandals undermined a tremendous amount of good work done by the three services in the name of peace. An elite regiment of good men who were brought into the Airborne Regiment after a major house cleaning of misfits and bad soldiers, was summarily punished by disbanding the regiment. A few steroid enraged sociopaths had screwed things up for everyone for years. But the politicians didn't see any difference. We on the outside never see cops disciplined for perceived or real wrongdoings. If it turns out that someone really overstepped their authority in High River or at the Firearms Lab', let the public know and maybe it will undo some of the hard feelings.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Reference your post #39,You, sir, are brainwashed by your occupational world.

BTW, there is already a class action suit being formed...ever hear of Ed Burlew?

[Marc Montgomery]

Guy, I dont know how long youve been out, but is it possible that since your years in service as an RCMP, the culture in the force has changed, and that may be what's behind, either higher or middle decisions such as this one to break in and confiscate?

Any idea on what level such a decision would have been made?

I have also heard that a similar thing happened in Slave Lake when the fire forced evacuation.. BUT I have not seen or heard anything to confirm or substantiate That particular claim.