According to kwtoxman, sure.
You haven't provided a shred of support for your opinion, but I'd like to see it. Let me dissect exactly why their action was reasonable, moral and legal, and you can tell me where my argument falls apart.
Reasonable:
It makes sense for LE to control access, and to find out who remains in an evacuated area. That may require entering private residences and looking for people. If unsecured firearms are found, it makes sense to secure them in order to maintain the security of the area, since looting is a common occurrence in evacuated areas. (Unsecured jewelry is not a hazard to anyone BTW).
Moral:
LE have a duty to maintain the security and safety of an evacuated area. They have a duty to remove or control risks as they find them. They have a duty to enforce the law.
Legal:
The minister has the authority to enter and seize property to alleviate the effects of the flood. Since the evacuation was a direct consequence of the flood, and looting is a common risk during an emergency evacuation, the risk of looking is an effect of the flood. LE have the authority to act on the minister's behalf, and seizing guns would alleviate the security risk presented by the emergency. LE also have the authority to enforce the law, and leaving guns unsecured in the house is illegal.
There are also a few logical challenges to your opinion on the validity of the RCMPs actions. Unlike, you, I will list these logical faults instead of just accusing you then moving on.
For one, what is your rationale for accepting their right to seize vehicles, but not guns? How does the former "combat or alleviate the effects" of flooding in your view, but not the latter? What if they found unsecured guns in a motorhome, can the RCMP seize the motorhome as long as they don't touch the guns? Secondly, when will we see a class action lawsuit against the RCMP for infringement of people's charter rights? All these alleged legal experts of yours seem to think the RCMP broke the law. This would be a great, high profile and financially rewarding case to prosecute. Won't they? Third, I haven't seen any media state that the RCMP acted illegally, yet you suggest that this is the reason why it became "big news". Can you show me one source (not an op-ed) that claims it's illegal, and if not, why would they put something in the news without ever mentioning the very thing that makes it newsworthy?
Poor analysis Fastar. You don't even make reasonable statements based in fact,... only assumption.. One time here, most repeated. And I'm done.
As has been noted in this thread multiple times, there has been no looting issues or problems, even touted by the RCMP themselves who have told the press the area is secure, isolated, patrolled, and not even a single looting event has been found. As such there was no security or looting issue giving any merit to seizing firearms, let alone breaking into homes and subsequently seizing firearms. And historically there never has been a security or looting issue in flood zones in the prairies. Never before have firearms been seized, nor were they from other flooded communities during the same flood event, such as Calgary, Bragg Creek, etc.
The police have discretion in enforcing the law, they do not have to enforce all laws at all times in all regards and manners. This discretion is seen every day all the time. Ever heard of a warning? For example, the RCMP would also be charging hundreds of people with unsafe storage of firearms in High River. And the RCMP has told the press many times they won't be doing that. It's called discretion. I can't believe this has to be explained. What about Caledonia? Caledonia was a paragon of police inaction.
It is blindingly simple to see how some vehicles can be used. How about obtaining big rigs, dump trucks, graders, and other building equipment to move stuff, get materials, build berms, move sand/sandbags for flood prevention, management, and mitigation measures. In emergencies, such local resources are often employed.
As for the illegality of the seizures and the media, since there hasn't been a precedent set yet in the courts, every single statement in the media will be an opinion, including yours. So your circular statement is illogical itself.
As for a lawsuit, show some patience. It's childish to argue that people should already basically be in court. And no, there won't be big money to be made. And it won't be a class action It may come, but the costs are prohibitive as the case will wind through the courts. It will hinge upon a proponent with deep pockets who was affected and wants to fight. It won't be like fighting a standard speeding ticket. AND it won't be a class action. This is basic stuff that shouldn't need explaining.
Was a State of Emergency declared? if so...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.5/page-2.html#h-5
8a, b, c
- (a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
- (c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
Please don't shoot the messenger.
This is why most people here have no business trying to interpret legislation. (Not to be harsh on you, but to point out the why some here are so off base). You missed a huge part of that legislation, the preamble to that section, which says
....the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
So without an order (or regulation) from the GIC, none of those actions can be legally undertaken using the federal legislation. No such orders or regulations were made for the Alberta flooding event.
