Mounties seized heirloom guns from High River home not in flood zone

[Locutus]

The RCMP's post-flood seizure of two family heirloom firearms is an outrageous trespass, says a High River man.

Greg Kvisle said the Mounties made three trips into his home before seizing the guns -- a 1912 Winchester long-barreled shotgun and a 50-year-old .303 rifle -- in the days following June's deluge.

"My grandfather passed them down to my dad, and when he passed away we brought them here for safekeeping," Kvisle said, adding neither weapon has been fired in decades.


Sun News : Mounties seized heirloom guns from High River home not in flood zone

​

 

[skookumchuck]

It will be all ignored soon, people do not remember, sadly nor do most care.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

From the article:

Kvisle said he had no trouble getting back his weapons from RCMP officers, whom he called courteous and professional. But the fact Mounties had taken hidden guns from his home on a partly populated street police were patrolling rankles him.

"What's next?" he said.

The Mounties said they seized firearms to prevent them from falling into the hands of burglars in vacated, unsecured areas.

Kvisle's guns must have been situated in open view, because it would have taken very little to uncover them, RCMP Sgt. Josee Valiquette said.

"If they happened to open a closet, it is in plain sight...these firearms were inappropriately secured," Valiquette said.

Kvisle said he's been told a civilian group that oversees the RCMP is reviewing his case.

 

[taxslave]

The only way the cops could know about the rifles is if the owner was foolish enough to have registered them. Only a fool believes the registry data has been destroyed.

 

[gerryh]

The only way the cops could know about the rifles is if the owner was foolish enough to have registered them. Only a fool believes the registry data has been destroyed.

No it's not. The cops were going through houses and searching them. Going into closets and searching closets.

 

[karrie]

The Mounties said they seized firearms to prevent them from falling into the hands of burglars in vacated, unsecured areas.
.

The major issue people took with this particular search and seizure was that the RCMP would not allow them back into their homes to retrieve these sorts of items based on the fact that the police had the area secured. So, 'you're not allowed in, we've got this', but 'we're taking your stuff, because we haven't got this'. It makes no sense.

 

[Spade]

If firearms are not properly secured, the owners should be prosecuted.

 

[Cliffy]

I didn't think heirlooms could be used as weapons.

Oh, wait a minute. That is a different kind of loom.

 

[Colpy]

If firearms are not properly secured, the owners should be prosecuted.

You have heard of the right to be free from unreasonable search??

Probable cause??

You know, things like that that are meant to hinder the establishment of a police state..........

 

[taxslave]

No it's not. The cops were going through houses and searching them. Going into closets and searching closets.

Also illegal.

 

[grumpydigger]

its what the rcmP can get away with not what is legal.. they work on a whole different level becase of their federal militarization ..marching threw locked houses checking under beds and in closets for your safety LOL

 

[Cliffy]

You have heard of the right to be free from unreasonable search??

Probable cause??

You know, things like that that are meant to hinder the establishment of a police state..........

The police state has been well established since the 50s.

 

[Spade]

You have heard of the right to be free from unreasonable search??

Probable cause??

You know, things like that that are meant to hinder the establishment of a police state..........

Another silly argument. If police in an attempt to verify security of property during the flood came across stolen property, they should ignore the crime? "If you do the crime..." to quote my conservative comrades.

 

[petros]

Door to door search? BULLSH*T. It was an electronic search done from high in the sky.

 

[Colpy]

Another silly argument. If police in an attempt to verify security of property during the flood came across stolen property, they should ignore the crime? "If you do the crime..." to quote my conservative comrades.

Oh yeah, that's right.........constitutional rights are of course a "silly argument".

They had no damned right to be in the houses in the FIRST place, and they did not "come across" 539 firearms in plain sight.....they had lists and were searching for them.

 

[petros]

Oh yeah, that's right.........constitutional rights are of course a "silly argument".

They had no damned right to be in the houses in the FIRST place, and they did not "come across" 539 firearms in plain sight.....they had lists and were searching for them.

Lists? A list compiled by an aerial magnetometer sweep. Gun metal alloys stand out like a sore thumb on a magnetometer.

 

[Colpy]

Lists? A list compiled by an aerial magnetometer sweep. Gun metal alloys stand out like a sore thumb on a magnetometer.

Possible, but I doubt it.

Why bother when all you have to do is search Possession and Acquisition licenses????

 

[petros]

How many are like you and me who didn't register everything? A 5 minute fly over will hit every last one of them. Why would I bother registering my grandfather's and father's guns that were given too me?

My 1866 Anniversary Edition. It's never been fired.

I'd never risk this being seized by letting them know I have it. Would you?

 

[Locutus]

The only way the cops could know about the rifles is if the owner was foolish enough to have registered them. Only a fool believes the registry data has been destroyed.

Nothing is ever completely 'deleted'.