Give back flood victims' guns

[maryjane48]

the one time i agree with harper :)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office is urging the RCMP in High River, Alta., to focus on "more important" tasks and to return the guns officers took from homes while searching for victims in the evacuated flood zone

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... berta.html



yup, even though there is a disaster, we going to check your houses while you evacuated :)

[Clipper]

So are these folks going to be charged with unsafe storage?
Access to the town was very limited and controlled and there were also police patrols; yet the "unsafely stored firearms" were a potential hazard? How about gun powder and primers?
If the houses were locked how did the police gain access; kick the door down?
What happens to the records the police now have as a result of minimizing a "serious potential hazard"?
Home owners were not allowed access to their homes to assess damage so would a thief have access somehow?
Was this become a province wide policy once the flooding started and homes were being evacuated or did this just happen in High River?
Too many questions....
BTW,I've owned firearms and reloading equipment and everything was covered under my home owners policy.
Also, if a flooded house is opened up and wet materials removed as soon as possible, the damage is lessened considerably.
Why wait until the houses are deemed "safe" by some paper pusher especially if the utilities have already been turned off?

[WhatThe]

What authority do they have to take people personal possessions? I don't get it

[cutter7]

police kicked the doors in and took the fire arms from evacuated houses

[Drip_Torch]

What authority do they have to take people personal possessions? I don't get it

Frankly, I can't imagine why the police would be allowed to search the homes and I'm surprised that the emergency management officials didn't put a stop to it right away.

Is a general overland flood reasonable and probable grounds to suspect anything? Is there any exigent circumstances that dictate these homes need to be searched? I don't see it. The rationale seems to be there may be victims...hmm, okay, and somewhere in the city of Penticton, a city where the average age is 56 and twenty year olds only visit for three months, someone may have died of old age today.

Should we have the RCMP conduct a random search of city homes just to be sure?

If there was a call for assistance to an address, or reports that a resident from a certain address couldn't be found... sure, I understand that, but that doesn't appear to be what's going on here.

The only reason I can see "the authorities" entering a residence is to ensure it's safety, first to the community and then to the individual home owner. Would that type of assessment be done by yahoos riding in the back of a pick up? I'm thinking because it's a "safety" oriented assessment - probably not.

When disaster strikes, minutes, if not seconds can count.

In the future, any evacuation order could be hampered by people having to consider "housekeeping" issues prior to surrendering their house and possessions to the authorities.

You simply can't unring the sound from that bell.

In this instance I'm on Mr. Harper's side.

[Catz]

I was quite disgusted when I read that yesterday. Poor choice for the rcmp to make.

[diggerdick]

I guess all houses that are left for one or two days could be deemed by the rcmp as unsecured and searched for guns .. if the guns were stored correctly and the doors were locked and the rcmp were doing there job of patrolling the town..the entering of the house for the gun is another small step toward a rightwing police state

[my5cents]

Just when you thought you heard of the RCMP doing the dumbest thing ever, they exceed in doing one "better".

In the CBC story Cpl Darrin Turnbull is quoted as saying :

"When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure."

"In those situations, when they were out in plain view and they were not properly secured and stored, those firearms were taken by the RCMP member and safely secured in the High River detachment. ..... once people are allowed back in their homes, they can pick up their guns, which have been tagged with information so they will be returned to the proper owner."

He didn't know exactly how many firearms had been collected and emphasized that officers were not specifically searching for guns or going out of their way to find them.

"The RCMP were not searching houses looking for firearms. The RCMP were going into homes looking for victims. If while we were in that home looking for victims there was an unsecured firearm that was out in the open, we had to take that firearm to make sure it was safe."

So with that information we are left to believe that "a couple" of guns were seized, and those were out in the open.

HOWEVER...... RCMP Insp Gerrett Woolsey is quoted as saying in the same CBC article :

"several hundred guns had been seized as officers inspected every home they could enter over a period of several days."

On Global NEWS this morning (Sat 29 Jun 2013) Woolsey also went on to say :

"We secured these firearms only for public safety reasons. In the unlikely event that we identify any illegal firearms we will then consult with crown prosecutors "

So which is it ? "Only for public safety reasons", or for police purposes ?

So which is it ? Gun were seized from "a couple of residences" or "several hundred" ?

Are Albertans so gun crazy that while searching evacuated homes in High River Alberta the RCMP discovered several hundred guns out in the open in homes ??????????????????????????????????????? I call BS on that one.

I can understand discovering the odd firearm in plain view and the police taking it for safe keeping (it's a stretch but I'll go along with that). In doing so they should only hold it for safe keeping. They should not be checking the serial number, they should be completely neutral.

Woolsey's statement that (if) they find an illegal firearm they will consult with crown, is so completely stupid. (He's an Inspector ???????)

I would expect that the crown, upon being informed that the RCMP conducted a warrantless searchs on evacuated homes and seized firearms, for which they now want to lay charges, would say "You did WHAT !"

I would love to hear from the home owners who have had their guns seized and find out, from them, where they were left.

[diggerdick]

when a state of emergency is called .like the riot act all the rules change..it is a police state in that area

[maryjane48]

exactly, forget warrants , theres a flood, lets see who we can charge :)

[Steve-O]

State of emergency allowed them to enter houses and they confiscated unsecured firearms. I haven't read anywhere saying that owners were charged.

I agree with what they did. There was looting going on. If these weapons were in plain view, than they could of just as easily been picked up by a looter. RCMP statement says the weapons were taken to ensure they were properly secured at the RCMP detachment in High River.

I also agree with what Harper is saying. The situation is back under control. Return the weapons. Maybe with a small lecture about proper storage but no charges.

Here's the CBC version of the story. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... berta.html

Take a moment to read it before jumping to conclusions. If you are looking for evidence of the RCMP acting over the top, you may be disappointed.

[maryjane48]

Woolsey's statement that (if) they find an illegal firearm they will consult with crown,


state of emergency does not give them the right to search for anything but victims , unless of course you want to throw the charter out the window

[alfred2]

They are not looking for guns, if they see one not locked up then will they take it. Calgary news has reported that they have notes whhere they got the guns and then eill return them.Going nuts over this shows how imature some people are.

[Steve-O]

The firearms were left out in the open. No searching. Should the RCMP just walk by an unsecured firearm and ignore it? There was no way to know when the homeowner would be allowed back to secure and in the meantime the house could be broken into. I'll buy the public safety line, seems like common sense to me.

Any homeowners wanting their legal firearm back will have no issue. "Illegal" firearm could range from prohibited weapons to non registered to stolen. I'm not up to date on what makes a firearm illegal. I guess if the Crown were to pursue charges and the owner fought the charge than we would find the answer if these seizures were kosher or not.

Different topic - Would state of emergency powers allow them to follow up on any other illegal offences they may have observed during their searches for occupants. Say for example they search a house and discover a grow op.

[WTTG]

How 'bout this for fun?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/28/pol-pmo-guns-alberta.html

If any firearms were taken, we expect they will be returned to their owners as soon as possible," the statement said. "We believe the RCMP should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property."

So, what if Harper actually wants gun owners to be assured they’ll get their weapons back, and to quit complaining while the RCMP continues to concentrate on more important work?