U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,570 posts, read 2,810,368 times
Reputation: 1591

Advertisements

^^^^^ very true. Never give the cops an excuse to seize your firearms by storing them in plain view, legal or not. Technically, all firearms are supposed to be secured, with trigger locks on them at the minimum.

I think Canada's gun laws are tough enough as they are. The police often seize firearms stored legally, especially in urban areas. I certainly wouldn't want my rifle or shotgun removed, although if they promised to return it when the evac was over, I might be okay with it, if not a little suspicious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2013, 09:06 AM
 
18,259 posts, read 10,360,166 times
Reputation: 13313
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
I hadn't heard anything about breaking down of doors by the RCMP. If that happened, that went too far. But based on the broader description as I understood it, I would be in favour of the RCMP collecting firearms left lying around. I can see the other scenario all too clearly - firearms lying around and some looter or kid gets at them, someone dies, and the RCMP are blamed. And I say that as someone with firearms in the house.
There was a newsclip of a young guy standing in his doorway who had returned to find his door wide opne with a broken framework and a bootprint next to the doorknob. He had already talked to the RCMP who ad admitted performing a search of his house.

His insurance had already asseessed the damage at over $4K as the door framework and sidelights would need replacing as a complete unit.

His concern was configned to: Where's a guy that's just suffered a major financial loss by a flood going to find $4K for a new door?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 09:09 AM
 
18,259 posts, read 10,360,166 times
Reputation: 13313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
From what I was reading and viewing on the news on TV many of the hardest hit houses had already had all their windows and doors destroyed and broken down by the rushing flood waters and floating debris, thereby making access easy for anyone.

According to the Alberta Emergency Management Act apparently the RCMP wouldn't have needed a warrant.

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:

(a) put into operation an emergency plan or program;
RSA 2000
Section 19 Chapter E-6.8
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT 13

(b) authorize or require a local authority to put into effect an
emergency plan or program for the municipality;

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

(d) authorize or require any qualified person to render aid of a
type the person is qualified to provide;

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

(f) provide for the restoration of essential facilities and the
distribution of essential supplies and provide, maintain
and co-ordinate emergency medical, welfare and other
essential services in any part 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;

(i) cause the demolition or removal of any trees, structures or
crops if the demolition or removal is necessary or
appropriate in order to reach the scene of a disaster, or to
attempt to forestall its occurrence or to combat its
progress;

(j) procure or fix prices for food, clothing, fuel, equipment,
medical supplies, or other essential supplies and the use of
any property, services, resources or equipment within any
part of Alberta for the duration of the state of emergency;

(k) authorize the conscription of persons needed to meet an
emergency.
Very concise and completely understandable. The part of confiscation of weapons or other illegal items found and any criminal charges arising from those found as a secondary result of a search however, might be a thorny issue for the crown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 09:21 AM
 
18,259 posts, read 10,360,166 times
Reputation: 13313
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
^^^^^ very true. Never give the cops an excuse to seize your firearms by storing them in plain view, legal or not. Technically, all firearms are supposed to be secured, with trigger locks on them at the minimum.

I think Canada's gun laws are tough enough as they are. The police often seize firearms stored legally, especially in urban areas. I certainly wouldn't want my rifle or shotgun removed, although if they promised to return it when the evac was over, I might be okay with it, if not a little suspicious.
I believe this to be the attitude of most of those affected.

I believe also they they will have the pertinent sections of the firearms laws printed in large print and plasticized to forestall any confontational aspect arising at the time of return of the weapon.

Those who had a locked closet broken into may have more to beetch about but getting the weapon back intact should serve to quell the bulk of that.

It's akin to police responding to a domestic dispute and for the safety of all individuals involved they confiscate any weapons within the household for a period to prevent a tragedy.

Discretionary powers are intangible things; we reserve the right to complain about our policing but sometimes they have an impossible conundrum to deal with. Should they overstep in the wrong direction they leave themselves open to criticism whichever side they come down on.

Had there been any looting of record AND a weapon previously registered under the old firearms acquisition registry, subsequently been lifted off a fireplace mantle to later be used in a high profile murder WITH the complication added that evidence entered at trial, stipulated the house had been searched by mounties with the gun being ignored while plainly visible as testified by the owner; one can just imagine the fallout and screams from the public at the deriliction of duty by the RCMP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 09:24 AM
 
18,259 posts, read 10,360,166 times
Reputation: 13313
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
I hadn't heard anything about breaking down of doors by the RCMP. If that happened, that went too far. But based on the broader description as I understood it, I would be in favour of the RCMP collecting firearms left lying around. I can see the other scenario all too clearly - firearms lying around and some looter or kid gets at them, someone dies, and the RCMP are blamed. And I say that as someone with firearms in the house.

THIS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 09:55 AM
pdw
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
1,473 posts, read 1,962,250 times
Reputation: 857
I'm a liberal and a pacifist, but I agree with the conservative perspective on this one. Entering and confiscating private property like that is unjustified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,703,198 times
Reputation: 9029
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
Now that is a very strange thing to say after accusations the "Canadians just don't understand the second amendment" posts in the other thread. How can you have it both ways?
Look at the thread about Border stops crossing into Canada and look at this thread.....
USA is a third world police state for protecting its border, I guess this means I can call Canada a third world police state?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,684 posts, read 6,531,390 times
Reputation: 8183
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
Look at the thread about Border stops crossing into Canada and look at this thread.....
USA is a third world police state for protecting its border, I guess this means I can call Canada a third world police state?
If you want to you can. I guess that would be where a different national perspective comes in - most Canadians wouldn't see a comparison between a seizure of firearms such as the one that took place and the ability to arbitrarily search anyone.

I'd have to reread the thread, which I just skimmed. If I remember correctly it was something about someone being stopped and searched near the border. I didn't find that all that shocking in this day and age when it happens near a border. I wouldn't have made a comparison to a police state based on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2013, 09:49 AM
 
18,259 posts, read 10,360,166 times
Reputation: 13313
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
If you want to you can. I guess that would be where a different national perspective comes in - most Canadians wouldn't see a comparison between a seizure of firearms such as the one that took place and the ability to arbitrarily search anyone.

I'd have to reread the thread, which I just skimmed. If I remember correctly it was something about someone being stopped and searched near the border. I didn't find that all that shocking in this day and age when it happens near a border. I wouldn't have made a comparison to a police state based on that.
I would have: and did!

We're not talking about AT the border during or immediately preceding the act of crossing. the thread O/P was about being stopped at some distance away from the actual border itself much like the 26 mile line after leaving Mexico upon entering the U.SofA. BUT prior to leaving the U.S. instead.

I have been stopped many times in years past by the U.S. Border Agents with my then owned International Toter pulling my 40 foot fifth wheel out of the RGV in Texas and it has always been a cordial chat, showing of passports with the agent looking back into the sleeper portion of the cab while a dog is walked around the rig.

I understand that requirement with the numbers of illegals flooding across the border from down there. BUT to then be stopped at some miles from the border with Canada to perhaps be subjected to a search or other inspection would seem to be counterintuitive to the security of the U.S. but merely information gathering for some reason using questionable abrogations of rights to probable cause, due process or other rights and freedoms supposedly stipulated to and held dear.by their constitution.

Now and for some time you could be stopped ANYWHERE within the United States in random check points by the TSA (of all agencies) at which point your vehicle could be searched without ANY semblance of probable cause being present at all.


Ron Paul Calls TSA ‘Jack-Booted Thugs’ in Response to Highway Checkpoints | Video | TheBlaze.com

This was supposedly stopped due to public outcry but then:

The TSA Is Coming To A Highway Near You - Forbes

And what this topic, or the thread referenced by invincible have to do with Canadians understanding of the U.S. constitution's 2nd Amendment rights (as though they're to any degree complex) I've yet to figure out.

Last edited by BruSan; 07-17-2013 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2013, 10:09 AM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,703,198 times
Reputation: 9029
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I would have: and did!

We're not talking about AT the border during or immediately preceding the act of crossing. the thread O/P was about being stopped at some distance away from the actual border itself much like the 26 mile line after leaving Mexico upon entering the U.SofA. BUT prior to leaving the U.S. instead.

I have been stopped many times in years past by the U.S. Border Agents with my then owned International Toter pulling my 40 foot fifth wheel out of the RGV in Texas and it has always been a cordial chat, showing of passports with the agent looking back into the sleeper portion of the cab while a dog is walked around the rig.

.
Does this mean you will stop coming here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top