How is this bantering moot? We, the people are argueing about whether we like what went down. Some like it, some don't. How is that moot? Legal beagle weasels, oh boy
Welcome to Communist Kanada Komrade, Papers please
- Thread starter CruisnGrrl
- Start date
How is this bantering moot? We, the people are argueing about whether we like what went down. Some like it, some don't. How is that moot? Legal beagle weasels, oh boy
What's so funny? Most CGN members have passed extensive background & reference checks - the lawful elite.
GTAM? Ummm yeah.
It was a gun grab, plain & simple. If it's about saving lives, time is of the essence - there's no time to waste collecting guns or anything else. That could've & should've been done later with a warrant.
Police do not require the use or possession of civilian guns in a state of emergency - certainly not in this case. There is absolutely no justification for their impropriety.
Last edited:
82 replies and no one has said why the guns were seized. Residents were threatening to run the blockades. Once in their homes, they would have been able to defend their occupation of said homes with force if necessary. The RCMP does not want to have civilians on a level playing field with them, so an arcane law was misinterpreted on purpose to seize their weapons and avoid a level playing field scenario. Plain and simple.
Yea, so did TAFB.
Justification ----> While carrying out they task they found firearms improperly stored and secured them. A gun grab would be taking them, not returning them and then destroying them. The cops have already said people can come pick their guns up as long as they have some place to put them. That's an elite requirement for gun ownership. Secure storage.
They were worried that there could be looters as there have been looters in situations like this in the past. <--- FACT.
It was a precaution. I suppose they felt that criminals taking firearms might use those firearms to do something illegal in the future, or sell them illegally to someone that would. Apparently people think that's impossible. Lawful elite criminals?
The fact that there were no looters reported (so far) doesn't mean you shouldn't take preventative measures against the possibility of them.
That's like saying...
You are wrong to have an alarm system on your home if you don't get robbed the next day.
You are wrong to wear a helmet if you don't crash the next day.
You are wrong to wear body armor and plate to the range (a joke but CGN paranoia relative) if you don't get shot by another member.
You are wrong to insure your motorcycle if it doesn't get stolen the next day.
And on and on and on....
Legal? Yes. Stupid? Yes. Bad PR? yes.
Still within the law.
Just like going to court to fight a ticket you got that you know you were guilty of is within the law.
To some people that's a scumbag move made by people that can't accept the consequences of their own actions.
Their opinion doesn't matter no matter how many internet tears they cry.
oh the drama....
Kennerisclutch
Active member
+1 This
kwtoxman
Well-known member
SUPER misleading. Another "expert" using a wikipedia quote taken as gospel. Sigh.
I do understand why people like to use it, but check your/their facts before posting, otherwise caveat utilitor on your image.
Provincially there was an emergency declaration. This does give some search and seizure powers, specifically with the Alberta emergency management act, but not beyond the AB bill of rights (read both for the fine details), as it is written in the law. So there is a very strong argument and firearm seizure was illegal under the application of AB laws. And the Alberta Emergency Management Act does not reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all. So the AB emergency laws do not override the charter of rights and freedoms either, without passing specific legislation to do so (discussed more below). NO such legislation was passed and there was no suspension of charter rights by AB with regards to emergency management of the flood event.
Now, certain sections of charter of rights and freedoms can be suspended as the charter law itself permits. BUT it is SEPARATE from emergencies, etc, written as such. This option has been used used to protect the tradition of parliamentary final authority over the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts. The idea is to permit constitutional rights to be altered or changed over time as society evolves through democracy and elected officials and parliament, rather than leaving that to potential back-door and fringe mechanisms.
To link the suspension of the charter of rights and freedoms to emergencies is dubious at best. Emergency legislation does not permit it, only specific charter doctrine, which has never been applied to emergencies. Can it be done? Yes, technically. In reality, pretty doubtful. Especially for a singular regional event such as the AB flooding. No government has dared suspend the charter of rights and freedoms for any previous emergency event. And it would depend on how elected representatives vote and the specific circumstances of the suspension (e.g., allowing search and seizure). That is why people should be very careful who they vote for into government. As seen here in this thread, some people have no issue at all with giving up their basic rights very quickly to government action.
Just for knowing what the feds can do....Read the federal emergency act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.5/FullText.html
Go and read reference #7 in your original quote, even, upon which that info was based.
No one in provincial, territorial or municipal governments can declare an emergency under the federal Emergencies Act. As mentioned before, it is the governor in council who can declare an emergency under that act.
AND it turns out the charter of rights is specifically noted in the Federal emergencies act... in a completely opposite manner....the federal gov't it its federal emergency legislation cannot suspend the charter of rights and freedoms through emergency management legislation.
Anyway, back to AB, there was no declaration of emergency using the federal act, and no orders were given. So again, no federal powers apply to the Alberta flood situation in any manner.
Last edited:
You're saying the RCMP shouldn't take action against looting because there was no looting. And you're repeating it over and over again because you fail to see that it's irrelevant. Just as with the removal of cars, it had nothing to do with responding to a danger, but preventing a risk as described in the article I linked to "The RCMP also seized a number of vehicles that were posing a safety hazard". They weren't used for any aw-shucks, hard workin', go-gett'em, atta-boy productive work fighting the flood as you imagine in your beaver cleaver world, they were removed for more forward-looking reasons which was to help guard against certain risks, just like removing the guns.
And again, this did not cause any transgression of any charter right. The charter protects us from "unreasonable search and seizure', and since the legal framework of the Emergency Act allows a reasonable response to an extreme disaster, and given that it's pretty standard in all jurisdictions in Canada and the rest of the developed world, clearly the charter was not breached. If you had read my question to you, I asked if there will ever be a legal challenge to the seizure of guns, this means in the future. I never pretended anyone should be in court already, no one did. Keep your childish claims for yourself. However I can guarantee you there will never be any legal challenge because it would be baseless. Not because it takes too much money (as if the gun lobby didn't have a ton of money or a legal team dying to score points from a controversy like this anyways).
With regards to police discretion, sure they could have left the guns there and not even issued warnings if they chose to. So? They chose to take them for safekeeping, that's also their discretion FYI. This argument is actually contrary to your claim that the seizure was illegal, if you're stating that the seizure was at their discretion!
And no, not every single statement in the media is an opinion. That's what op-eds are for. The media could have accused the RCMP of "potentially illegal" acts, or quoted anyone who thought so. In fact I found one for you here:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/RCMP+misses+mark+with+seizure+guns+High+River/8596181/story.html
They don't claim it's illegal, they ask as in "How is this not theft?" or suggest it as in "there was no crime within, except, perhaps, by the police". This is the only one I can find who's outrage seems to be based on the assumption that it was illegal. Of course, the author doesn't say a peep about it being a state of emergency, probably because he's not a very good reporter. If you can find any others, please show them.
What we are saying is that the RCMP should take action against looters and not law-abiding citizens.
That's exactly what they did! They prevented looters from being able to access the guns, while making them available to their owners FFS.
What they did was prevent the owners from accessing their guns. Do you realize that a good percentage of non-restricted guns are owned without proof of purchase? How can I provide proof of purchase for a rifle I bought from a guy at the range? Their press release says that you need proof of purchase in order to get your property back.
Also if their main motivation was to protect property from looters, why not confiscate jewelry, computers, big screen TV's, power tools, tablets?
If everything goes according to plan, a bunch of people have just lost valuable property. If there are "administrative errors" on top of everything, more people have lost more of their legal property. Yeah, way to go RCMP
What they did was prevent the owners from accessing their guns. Do you realize that a good percentage of non-restricted guns are owned without proof of purchase? How can I provide proof of purchase for a rifle I bought from a guy at the range? Their press release says that you need proof of purchase in order to get your property back.
Also if their main motivation was to protect property from looters, why not confiscate jewelry, computers, big screen TV's, power tools, tablets?
If everything goes according to plan, a bunch of people have just lost valuable property. If there are "administrative errors" on top of everything, more people have lost more of their legal property. Yeah, way to go RCMP
What press release? I've read some breathless crying about a proof of purchase requirement in uhm, "select" media, probably the same ones who like you, think this was part of a grand scheme to take people's guns because they need to cling to that fear in order to maintain their faith in their fight against government oppression. But everywhere else I've read it just says they'll just give 'em back to the residents whose home they came from.
If ever some people don't get their guns back, then that will be newsworthy. Until then; YAWN.
BTW it's hard to commit crimes with diamond rings. "Stick 'em up or I'll cut you"?
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/a...guns+from+High+River+homes/8588851/story.html
So now you see where I got my info. Straight from the horse's mouth (or the other end). You are being contradictory here.. First you claim that the RCMP are doing those gun owners favours by protecting their property. As soon as that is proven false, you change your tune to "some criminals will commit crimes with that property". So you admit that the RCMP is not representing the interests of the law-abiding gun owners and is instead out to grab guns? The only criminals breaking into houses and looting there are wearing uniforms.
What they did was prevent the owners from accessing their guns. Do you realize that a good percentage of non-restricted guns are owned without proof of purchase? How can I provide proof of purchase for a rifle I bought from a guy at the range? Their press release says that you need proof of purchase in order to get your property back.
Also if their main motivation was to protect property from looters, why not confiscate jewelry, computers, big screen TV's, power tools, tablets?
If everything goes according to plan, a bunch of people have just lost valuable property. If there are "administrative errors" on top of everything, more people have lost more of their legal property. Yeah, way to go RCMP
Because all the other crap you listed aren't weapons!
No, they were never representing the "law abiding gun owners". They never claimed they were.... Nor should they. They could have been representing society as a whole though when you made that decision....
The REASON they confiscated the guns was for security. How was that proven false? The fact that they didn't take other valuables seems to prove it's true! The RESULT is that owners can rest assured that their guns are safe. No contradiction here. Better luck next time.
Also, you said owners NEED proof of ownership to get their guns back. That's not what the officer is quoted as saying (not a press release BTW), he just said that they will be released with proof of ownership. Uh, yeah. I would friggin hope so!
BTW the definition of a criminal is one who breaks the law. Nobody has demonstrated any law breaking by LE yet. You should hike your pants up, your prejudice is showing.
If the owners show any ID with their address on it the cops will match that ID up with the address that was written on every tag on every gun that was removed and they can take it as long as they actually have someplace to put it.
I'm thinking getting guns back isn't all that high on the actual flood victims priorities list though.
It seems to be the priority of the crying gun wackos that weren't effected in the slightest by any of this and pretty much only them.
I imagine having a place to live, clothes to wear, getting their homes back and fighting the upcoming fight with the insurance companies is priority right now.
I'm willing to bet half of them leave them in the police lock up.
Seriously, do you think they need more hassles of where to keep their guns when they don't even have a pot to piss in?
Right... if you drank the koolaid that the crying gun community serves you do. The same crying gun community that was certain they were going to confiscate everything after another country had Sandy Hook or thought the RCMP was after their SAN rifles until they learned that it was one of their very own in the industry no less who threw you under the bus after he couldn't get his classification submission approved.
LOL
Fact is nobody in the government gives a flying **** about your handguns, AR-15s, thermoptics, NVG, lvl 4 body armor, laser designators, 100 drum mags with a tiny pop rivet in it or anything you own that you claim they are after.
You aren't the rest of the world. You are actually one of the last places that has all that **** but you still aren't satisfied because you are whiny little first world children who can never be satisfied.
Guess you're so desperate for something to actually be taken that you will invent any story and them back peddle when it turns out it was all a big stink about nothing.
Keep crying wolf.
I'm thinking getting guns back isn't all that high on the actual flood victims priorities list though.
It seems to be the priority of the crying gun wackos that weren't effected in the slightest by any of this and pretty much only them.
I imagine having a place to live, clothes to wear, getting their homes back and fighting the upcoming fight with the insurance companies is priority right now.
I'm willing to bet half of them leave them in the police lock up.
Seriously, do you think they need more hassles of where to keep their guns when they don't even have a pot to piss in?
Right... if you drank the koolaid that the crying gun community serves you do. The same crying gun community that was certain they were going to confiscate everything after another country had Sandy Hook or thought the RCMP was after their SAN rifles until they learned that it was one of their very own in the industry no less who threw you under the bus after he couldn't get his classification submission approved.
LOL
Fact is nobody in the government gives a flying **** about your handguns, AR-15s, thermoptics, NVG, lvl 4 body armor, laser designators, 100 drum mags with a tiny pop rivet in it or anything you own that you claim they are after.
You aren't the rest of the world. You are actually one of the last places that has all that **** but you still aren't satisfied because you are whiny little first world children who can never be satisfied.
Guess you're so desperate for something to actually be taken that you will invent any story and them back peddle when it turns out it was all a big stink about nothing.
Keep crying wolf.
