RCMP seize ‘substantial’ number of firearms from evacuated homes

SgtLumpy said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Exactly what are you going to do, Mike?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
But it sounds more like they just went house to house and conducted preemptive searches, and I DO have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
I think you're exactly right. And I think they started and ended those searches with their registration list.
 
The fact that you seem to have zero issue with the enforcement of a blatant 4th Amendment violation is quite troubling to me
Click to expand...
We're talking about Canada here. The American Constitution doesn't apply. Lots of folks have gotten into real trouble assuming that the rights protected by our laws are also respected abroad.
 
Devil in the details, which, we don't have...

The Canadian constitution may protect their citizens from unreasonable searches, BUT, what is reasonable?

I doubt that you will find any judge or magistrate on either side of the border who would think that requiring a warrant for each house to be searched, when the town is evacuated due to a natural disaster, AND that the searches are being done to ensure they got everybody out, is reasonable or prudent.

Now, the fact that during the search for people, bodies, gas leaks, or other dangerous situations, the RCMP picking up loose guns and holding them for their owner's return might just be considered reasonable and prudent.

Who's viewpoint is right will be decided by a Canadian court, at some later date, I'm sure.

This is NOT the same sort of situation we had during Katrina. There we had cops going to people's homes, WHILE PEOPLE WERE THERE and taking their guns away. Quite a different situation than police picking up loose guns after the people have evacuated. Quite different, beyond the fact that one was in the US and the other in Canada.

Not saying it was the right thing to do, only that it may have been allowable under Canadian law, even though, based on the scanty information we currently have, it upset a number of residents.
 
To play devil's advocate.

It's pretty clear that securing the firearms from looters (if that is what they were doing) isn't a matter of securing valuables so much as it's a matter of securing potentially dangerous items. A methhead getting your flatscreen isn't a big issue. There's not much he can do with it except sell it. A methhead getting your gun (or a whole town full of them) is a bit of a bigger problem.

Also, like 44 AMP, said. They allegedly weren't going around specifically looking for guns. They went to ALL homes looking for bodies and survivors in need of help (which, after a disaster like that, I think would qualify as reasonable cause even in the U.S.) and were told to simply pick up whatever guns they happened to see. Not cracking open safes, not cutting open your mattress, not pulling up your floorboards. Just whatever was in plain view.
And frankly, if there's a natural disaster, with all the looters and criminals that entails and you abandon your home for who knows how long and just leave your guns lying around where anyone could clearly see them. You really have no grounds to complain when you find they're not there upon your return.

So really the only potential issue I see here is what would count as "proof of ownership" to get them back.
 
Nickel Plated said:
Also, like 44 AMP, said. They allegedly weren't going around specifically looking for guns. They went to ALL homes looking for bodies and survivors in need of help (which, after a disaster like that, I think would qualify as reasonable cause even in the U.S.) and were told to simply pick up whatever guns they happened to see. Not cracking open safes, not cutting open your mattress, not pulling up your floorboards. Just whatever was in plain view.
And frankly, if there's a natural disaster, with all the looters and criminals that entails and you abandon your home for who knows how long and just leave your guns lying around where anyone could clearly see them. You really have no grounds to complain when you find they're not there upon your return.
Click to expand...
What article stated that the RCMP was looking for bodies and survivors in need of help? Even IF that might be true (although I question its validity), it wouldn't qualify as reasonable cause in the U.S. if the people locked their doors when they left. That would mean that, to enter, the police/RCMP would have to commit a felony in order to even gain entry into the houses. And the article cited in the opening post confirms that's exactly what they did -- broke into locked houses. (That's what "forced entry" means.)

Secondly, exactly where was it reported that the RCMP picked up only firearms that were in plain sight? I will assume they didn't crack any gun safes (but one should never assume), but most people simply don't leave guns lying around in plain sight, especially if evacuating home for an indeterminate period of time. Certainly not a whole town full of people. So that strongly suggests that, at the least, the RCMP went rooting around in people's closets, attics and basements looking for guns.

If you have specific, reliable citations to prove me wrong, please post the links.
 
Last edited:
but most people simply don't leave guns lying around in plain sight
Click to expand...
You might be surprised. I have seen many a gun leaned up against a nice safe with the safe door cracked open an inch or two. I think most would secure a little better if evacuating.

It isn't practical for a "collector" to evacuate all their weapons. I could do it with ease today, but five years ago It would have taken me considerable time to do so.

I bet this story is getting more play in the US than Canada. There is a cultural difference.
 
The Calgary Herald has a short follow up piece on the fallout from the gun seizures. Specifically, "the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP will examine whether officers broke any laws or breached force policies."

Also, of interest might be this resident's quote that may answer some of the speculation earlier in this thread:

Greg Kvisle has reclaimed two guns that he says were hidden in a basement storage room when he evacuated.

“I’m not buying this story from the police about taking firearms left on the kitchen table,” Kvisle said.

“The truth is they kicked down locked doors and went digging through people’s closets.”​

If his experience is anything close to typical, that's a far cry from simply securing guns sitting in plain sight on the kitchen table or on a bed.
 
Geoff7 said:
If his experience is anything close to typical, that's a far cry from simply securing guns sitting in plain sight on the kitchen table or on a bed.
Click to expand...
I think we all knew that already, but thanks for the confirmation.

The fairy tale that an entire town of several thousand residents ALL evacuated and left piles of firearms lying around their houses never passed the stink test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top