The Readers' Digest Condensed Version:
Finding Number 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.
Finding Number 30: The RCMP were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms.
Finding Number 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the Common Law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.
Finding Number 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.
Colpy, are you plying the same shyte in this thread too? How many incidents Colpy? Was that 6 incidents the report detailed... 3 from residents and 3 actually reported by the RCMP themselves?
but as I said Colpy,
please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" & "some number" of "secured" circumstances... it appears that number is 6, hey Colpy... and as the report stated, there could be duplicates within that 6... there could be incidents reported more than once within that 6. And do that all in the context of a State of Emergency, some 300 persons who refused to leave (inclusive of a high-risk offender), and ongoing incidents of reported break and enter/theft. While you're doing all that make sure you throw in some degree of, at large, platitude expression over the concern for murdered RCMP officers.
per the other thread, your fails over the Emergency Measures Act and the Criminal Code S.489 were highlighted. Equally, your claim that a law was broken concerning unsecured seizure does not hold up to the detailed explanation presented within the report; specifically:
as the report states, Colpy: "
Given the emergency circumstances which existed at the time and the potential accessibility of the firearms within homes, the RCMP's belief that the unsecured firearms posed a threat to public safety was not unreasonable."
as the report also states, Colpy: there is no case law to speak to "
whether the public safety risk justified the seizure". However, in conclusion the report does state that the RCMP action was "...
arguably a reasonable and common sense approach.
However, at present there is no clear guidance from the courts on this issue and, accordingly, it is not possible to make a definitive finding in this regard. A determination of this point will not be possible until the courts have been called upon to rule on the issue or until legislation is passed."
