|
quaint bucket posted:The people were told to stop doing the X and just leave instead. blackswordca posted:Its a state of emergency, there is no right to private property. Actually there's no right to private property period.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well if the RCMP is seizing only guns, doesn't it almost have to be because they don't want people sneaking back in, arming themselves, and then refusing to leave? I sincerely doubt any sort of actual firefight would ever break out, but that's still one hell of a nightmare scenario in a place where emergency workers will be operating for some time. Maybe, maybe not. We can't make conjectures on the RCMP behalf about what their motives was. I honestly do believe they did it out of the best interest of the public, rather than the "secret anti-gun agenda," but at the same time I'm not comfortable with the police breaking into my home and confiscating my property even in the state of emergency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Yeah, there's that, but guns are still guns. If it was TVs, or even stuff like knives or blowtorches that could be used as weapons, it'd be much shadier.Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Well, the issue is totally that they're guns, though, so if folks here are getting "hung up" on the fact that people were leaving unsecured firearms around their homes right in the open after evacuating the area which makes it way easier for potential looters to steal the firearms and have them worm their way into potential criminal activity, then yeah. They're hung up on the police doing their job, those dastardly policemen, them. Wait, do we know that the guns seized were unsecured? I thought they legally had to be locked up at all times anyway? My sister has a dinky rear end biathlon rifle, and even that is stored in a locked case with a trigger lock, and the ammunition stored elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Wait, do we know that the guns seized were unsecured? I thought they legally had to be locked up at all times anyway? My sister has a dinky rear end biathlon rifle, and even that is stored in a locked case with a trigger lock, and the ammunition stored elsewhere. The quote in the article was, quote:"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," Corp. Darrin Turnbull told CBC News in an interview. They do have to be locked up and secure at all times but I'm sure there are lots of people who don't actually lock them up properly for reasons I won't speculate on and (un)fortunately the RCMP found them and secured them themselves. However it did say in the article that people can pick up their guns once they're allowed to return home, and I don't know if the RCMP will charge them or not. Probably not though and just give them a warning to properly secure their guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Wait, do we know that the guns seized were unsecured? I thought they legally had to be locked up at all times anyway? My sister has a dinky rear end biathlon rifle, and even that is stored in a locked case with a trigger lock, and the ammunition stored elsewhere. That's what the cops are saying, yeah, and considering there were plenty of people defying the evac order, there were still people around who might have been able to take them. So I sympathise with the rationale for seizing them but it'll probably do more harm than good. Edit: I'd like to say "surely they wouldn't be dumb enough to try and charge anyone for this," but well, RCMP. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, there's that, but guns are still guns. If it was TVs, or even stuff like knives or blowtorches that could be used as weapons, it'd be much shadier. Guns are a risk in the wrong hands, I will give you that. Regarding the laws, I will expand on this because the RCMP statement on "improperly secured" is so vague that it bothers me. For non restricted firearms (typically long barrel guns), they need the meet the following criteria: Trigger-locked and unloaded OR; Locked in a secure case and unloaded For Restricted Firearms (pistols and short barrelled rifles/shotguns) to the best of my knowledge but erring on the side of caution because I don't own any restricted: Trigger-locked, in a case (safe or lockable container), and unloaded. With Nonrestricted, you can have them trigger locked and left on the couch in plains sight. For the average person, they would see that as insecure despite meeting the legal requirements. Most normal people keep theirs under the bed or in the closet if they lack a safe. With an emergency evacuation, I can see people deciding on whether or not they should bring their firearms before deciding to leave it at home. I can see a police officer seeing a shotgun in the closet and claiming that it was insecure despite meeting the legal requirements. The RCMP will, hopefully, know better not to charge people but I'm also hoping they will take good care of them at least because people do care about the conditions of their firearms especially with wood stocks on them. E: Trailing away from this a bit but the main issue is this: people are more upset about the police breaking into people's homes and confiscating their properties. quaint bucket fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
MagicCube posted:The quote in the article was, Oh gods drat it, so everyone is upset about nothing? I mean, it's not like High River has real problems the community needs to be dealing with right now. Fucks sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:
They can be as upset as they want, the law is on the side of the RCMP. The emergency response act, right from the queens press can be seen here: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf Under section 19 there are at least three sections come into play: (c) acquire or utilize any real or personal property considered necessary to prevent, combat or alleviate the effects of an emergency or disaster; (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; and (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; While a state of emergency is in effect basically Yes, the RCMP can break into their houses, Yes they can remove and confiscate any property they deem necessary and Yes they can forcibly remove people from their property. E: I am in no way a lawyer, but the act seems pretty cut and dry in a layman's eyes blackswordca fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
If it was all a secret conspiracy to take guns away, how many Canadians would actually care? 10%? 20%? The Canadian people have shown a remarkable ability to remain apathetic about much worse incidents than this. I get that I should probably be more bothered by RCMP overreach, but in this instance it's tough to work up much enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:
You'd have to be an autistic mathematical genius to get that reference. Or is that the goal to aggregate all the world's idiot savants in Canada? Maybe they could administer the Harper Conservative World Hospital™.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:39
|
|
although the cube reference is funnier as you have to figure it out.
|
BGrifter posted:If it was all a secret conspiracy to take guns away, how many Canadians would actually care? 10%? 20%? The Canadian people have shown a remarkable ability to remain apathetic about much worse incidents than this. High River was an inside job. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
leofish posted:FINALLY SOMEONE STANDING UP FOR THE WHITE MAN Ugh, this MP is the MP in my riding. He's generally a pretty rude guy, from the limited experience I have of him from seeing him around town in meetings, campaign stuff, etc. I'm pretty disappointed with the constituents in this riding for electing him, but most of the people out here in the St. Paul/Cold Lake/Bonnyville area, at least the affluent, rich, and generally white oil industry workers, are loving bigots who regularly use thinly veiled racist comments like "those people" or when talking about the First Nations around here say things like "I'm not a racist or anything, but, you know, there's the good ones and then there's the bad ones, ya know?". So, I guess he's pandering to his base, right?  Makes me sick to the stomach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:E: Trailing away from this a bit but the main issue is this: people are more upset about the police breaking into people's homes and confiscating their properties. And yes. Loads of people keep their rifles leaning against a wall with no trigger lock whatsoever. And you know what, for the most part I couldn't care less. But when the town is about to be underwater, you can either take the time to secure it before you leave or expect the possibility it'll be gone when you get back. It's not unreasonable for the cops to grab it and lock it down, especially when that's the second-least-bad option (on a scale of "it's still there but waterlogged" to "someone grabbed it in the confusion and sold it illegally"). lonelywurm fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
After what happened to New Orleans during Katrina, I'm shocked people aren't more supportive of the RCMP's actions. You don't have the right to own a gun, it's a privilege that the government extends to properly qualified individuals, and that privilege can be revoked. In a disaster scenario where there's a reasonable fear of a temporary breakdown in the social order, abandoned and unsecured weapons should absolutely be confiscated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:Finally, our right to be offensive has been returned to us. That'll show those nancy-boy liberal PC thought police thugs who's boss! Maybe I'll go drop a few dozen slurs on the Prime Minister's Facebook page! Your MP is a bit of a dickhead, but S. 13 was a pretty terrible piece of legislation and I'm glad its gone. Canadian Human Rights Act posted:" (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." For an act that empowers a government body to be able to impose penalties to have a threshold as low as "likely to expose" is a glaring problem that should have been cleaned up on its original passing. Even raising the threshold to "causes a person or persons to be exposed to hatred or contempt" would have gone a long way to alleviating a lot of the flack. There's also no provision for "truth" as a defence, which is a key element and reasonable element to add to any government restriction on speech. I have no problem with hate speech legislation, but you have to implement it carefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is that there were unsecured guns in places that were supposed to be empty of people, so if anyone had stayed behind and decided to a bit of looting they could have stolen a bunch of guns, and then these people's guns would be actually gone and not just locked up at an RCMP detachment where they could be easily retrieved, and there would be an illegal gun out there somewhere unaccounted for, which would be a huge nightmare for the owner because they hadn't secured it properly in the first place and now there's a gun out there on the black market registered to their name. The RCMP seizing these guns is a matter of public safety, hardly some giant conspiracy to steal everybody's guns--unless, of course, all those guns are illegally owned in the first place and therefore can't be retrieved, since you have to present proof of ownership to get your gun back. I can understand why people are upset about the RCMP entering their homes uninvited, but it's a loving disaster zone and they're searching for people who were left behind, you have to expect they will go through your house at some point. Doing a little preventative harm reduction with no long-term negatives is hardly the worst thing they could do. One other thing, when the NatPo wrote their article about this they omitted the bit where the RCMP say they were only taking unsecured firearms in plain sight, so of course the NP comments section jumped straight to 'drat fascists are cracking our safes and turning our houses upside down with the specific intent to steal all our guns and then even if you go in to get it back, they've got your name now so it's like a resurrection of the long gun registry '.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The fact of the matter is that there were unsecured guns in places that were supposed to be empty of people, so if anyone had stayed behind and decided to a bit of looting they could have stolen a bunch of guns, and then these people's guns would be actually gone and not just locked up at an RCMP detachment where they could be easily retrieved, and there would be an illegal gun out there somewhere unaccounted for, which would be a huge nightmare for the owner because they hadn't secured it properly in the first place and now there's a gun out there on the black market registered to their name. The RCMP seizing these guns is a matter of public safety, hardly some giant conspiracy to steal everybody's guns--unless, of course, all those guns are illegally owned in the first place and therefore can't be retrieved, since you have to present proof of ownership to get your gun back. Long guns are no longer required to be registered. In case if you didn't know. Restricted, on the other hands are required to be registered (providing they are not antiquated). I have a very strong feeling most, if not all, were Non-Restricted and most likely were legally stored in their bedrooms, closet, and garages. We don't know for sure because the RCMP has not defined what they mean by unsecured or even how the owners can prove ownership. There's a lot of misinformation floating around and both sides aren't helping themselves here. I hope the RCMP make a press release to explain the situation because this isn't really helping anybody. All I've learned is that if the big one actually does hit the Lower Mainland, I'm taking mine with me because I don't like the idea of my firearms being taken by looters or the police. The former is bad, the latter is not much better because bureaucracy is not pleasant to deal with. Should be interesting how this might influence the Conservative convention coming up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:All I've learned is that if the big one actually does hit the Lower Mainland, I'm taking mine with me because I don't like the idea of my firearms being taken by looters or the police. The former is bad, the latter is not much better because bureaucracy is not pleasant to deal with. As a fellow gun owner, I'm kind of torn as to what I would do. If I was to evacuate, how do you think police are going to respond if I'm rolling into an evacuation point with a 12 gauge slung over my shoulder? I have a feeling that you're going to get it confiscated by the police no matter what you do. I can't see them letting you run around with it. That being said, if the poo poo really hits the fan, you're probably going want it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Rhobot Mk. II posted:As a fellow gun owner, I'm kind of torn as to what I would do. If I was to evacuate, how do you think police are going to respond if I'm rolling into an evacuation point with a 12 gauge slung over my shoulder? May sound silly, but worse comes to worse you can always cover said fire arm with grease, and a strong tarp. Proceed to bury it in your backyard before evacuation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Ah yes. The Soviet method.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
This is why my gun disassembles into a pen, a lighter, a cigarette case, and one of my cuff links. Mounties can't confiscate it that way. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:This is why my gun disassembles into a pen, a lighter, a cigarette case, and one of my cuff links. Mounties can't confiscate it that way. Yeah, but then you have to hang around midgets for the rest of your career, and constantly have to deal Roger Moore breaking into your house and drinking all your good scotch. Seriously, it's a huge problem. He's out of work, and he always says he'll be on my couch for a couple days, and then it's two weeks later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:We don't know ... how the owners can prove ownership. If only there was sort of registry! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Yeah, but then you have to hang around midgets for the rest of your career, and constantly have to deal Roger Moore breaking into your house and drinking all your good scotch. Yeah, but Moore has to wear a lovely fake nipple to pull it off, so I think we're even. He gets drunk and embarassed. Win/win. And better him than Dalton, because I swear, I have never once gotten along with anyone who shares my first name. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Yeah, but Moore has to wear a lovely fake nipple to pull it off, so I think we're even. He gets drunk and embarassed. Win/win. Only the character. I, honestly, got teased a shitton as a kid about it. No, I don't get it either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Can our party include a hostile takeover of Ontario Hydro? FYI doesn't exist anymore. Split into smaller pieces, all 'privatized' in that the majority owner is the government. Also, pretty sure the government wouldn't care, shrug at you, and hire a private contractor outfit to take care of the operations with fewer employees and completely non-unionized workforce. Pick your targets better, mmk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Oh man, what I would have done to have a cool association to my name as a child like James Bond. Instead, I grew up in Canada where having a last name starting with H and my first name be "Tim" got me the most rage-inducing nickname. But I showed them. I showed them all. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Oh man, what I would have done to have a cool association to my name as a child like James Bond.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:It's not as cool as you'd think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
blackswordca posted:
Just as an aside, there may be a section in the act, or in the definitions portion which precedes the legislation, that defines a "building". One the the pieces of legislation that I work under gives us the power to enter any "building" without a warrant; however, the act then goes on to clarify that this "building" does not include a dwelling unit. We can enter any commercial, industrial or governmental site - but from the writ of King George the 2nd; The crown batters mustly on the dorrs of the people. Everthy man's home bequeathed is his castle forthwith. Thus endeth verily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:If only there was sort of registry! Please tell me you don't actually support the long gun registry. Abolishing it was about one of the only good things this government has managed to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:Please tell me you don't actually support the long gun registry. Abolishing it was about one of the only good things this government has managed to do. I support a long gun registry. And tightened firearm restrictions in general. I know next to nothing in terms about the gun registry, and so I don't know whether I support it or not. And this is one case where a long gun registry would be pretty damned helpful. There's a reason we do it for land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:
Yeah, thinking back to my education, isn't this entire country still technically Crown land?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
If your gun is propping up a kitchen table that's missing a leg or something maybe gun ownership is not for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:If only there was sort of registry! I am only going from what I've heard from friends in Alberta and the like but the information I've gathered seems to suggest if the Mounties found a firearm 'unsecured' they took it and tagged it with the house and room it was found in and anyone with a PAL or RPAL license and ID linked to that household can retrieve the firearm. This should make for some interesting claims and daytime television!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
angerbot posted:If your gun is propping up a kitchen table that's missing a leg or something maybe gun ownership is not for you. I don't know, maybe that's just being economical and multi-tasking with one's tools on hand! GOVERNMENT CRACKING DOWN ON FRUGAL CANADIANS WHO USE THEIR GUNS EVERYDAY TO LEGAL ENDS!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I support a long gun registry. And tightened firearm restrictions in general. I know next to nothing in terms about the gun registry, and so I don't know whether I support it or not. Please enlighten me how a firearms registry would be useful in this case. They're going door to door through every house anyways to look for people, and are (hopefully) only grabbing the firearms they see floating around in basements or leaned up against walls without trigger locks or the like on the way through. I mean, it would certainly be useful in locating and confiscating property, which is what the RCMP used it for whenever they arbitrarily re-classified firearms to prohibited from non-restricted. The only reasonable angle I can see you're seeing this from is in the case of returning these firearms to their owners, but a responsible firearms owner should have the serial numbers, description, firearm model/year(if possible) and a few pictures of all their firearms stored somewhere in a water proof container (just like any other important personal records). And it's clear that you must have little knowledge of how wide sweeping and restrictive our firearms legislation already is. People that hold firearms licenses have their criminal records checked everyday. Tell me, do you have your criminal record checked every day? If you don't have a firearms license or a federal job or something that requires that sort of thing, you probably don't. They go through an extensive vetting process that takes anywhere from 1-4 months, depending on the case and circumstances at the bureaucracy. If they have a conjugal partner/spouse, they must sign the application, and 2 other character references must be provided. Magazine's capacities are strictly limited, and storage laws for restricted firearms (pistols, rifles with barrels shorter than 18.5") are extremely stringent, and they can only be transported directly from the home to a registered range where the owner is a member at. Legally, it is nearly impossible to use a firearm in self defence in almost any situation, unless there is unquestionable proof that their or someone else's life was in imminent danger, and even then, you'll have to prove your innocence in a lengthy and very costly criminal trial. These laws are enforced as strictly as is possible by the RCMP (for "the public's safety"  ), and mandatory minimum sentences are in place for many of the convictions. Thousands of people die in Canada to drunk, irresponsible, or inattentive driving, higher than the numbers killed (excluding suicides) by firearms. According to a (probably former by now) Toronto police chief, at least 80-90% of firearms used in crimes in his jurisdiction were illegally obtained firearms, either being stolen, smuggled from the US, or bought on the black market. Criminals don't exactly go and register or legally use the tools that they use for crime, regardless of what legal restrictions are in place.Edit: Yeah, what Angerbot said. If your firearms are lying around like that, you're probably not a responsible firearms owner, and probably could be charged for improper storage laws if they felt like enforcing it. They probably won't, given the circumstances, but I too think this issue is being way overblown by some conservative firearms owners. E2: Here, Have some well sourced facts and some direct sources Mederlock fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
^^^ wow, speaking of James Bond fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
Man gun people are weird. I'm rapidly reaching the point where I want to see crazy gun control laws on the books just to troll the hell out of the gun owners. Maybe something where owning a gun requires you to get a forehead tattoo that reads "has a gun".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
JoelJoel posted:You'd have to be an autistic mathematical genius to get that reference. Or is that the goal to aggregate all the world's idiot savants in Canada? Maybe they could administer the Harper Conservative World Hospital™. I got it. But I might be an autismal mathematical genius too. I just thought the cops were securing poo poo that the owners forgot to, no biggie, thanks for catching that, my bad kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:31
|
|
