Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[waldo]

Once again, learn to read English:

Now, you wanna try again and tell me who has reading comprehension problems?

that would be YOU. Again, I've already addressed the causal ties that supported search, at large. Your problem is you're stuck on that.... you need to move along, lil' doggy... you need to move on to the next part; again, the 2 sentences you purposely omitted. These 2 sentences:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code. Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”
​

just slow down Colpy... take a few deep breaths! It just might help with your reading comprehension difficulty! :mrgreen:

 

[Colpy]

that would be YOU. Again, I've already addressed the causal ties that supported search, at large. Your problem is you're stuck on that.... you need to move along, lil' doggy... you need to move on to the next part; again, the 2 sentences you purposely omitted. These 2 sentences:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code. Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”
​

just slow down Colpy... take a few deep breaths! It just might help with your reading comprehension difficulty! :mrgreen:

I know you love to be told what and how to think, but here is a hint for you:

When the RCMP are engaged in illegal activities, you do not take the word of the head of the RCMP that it is all OK.

That is what the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission is for....and they said:"Although the EMA granted RCMP members the lawful authority for warrantless entries in furtherance of the EOC's emergency plans, these statutory powers did not authorize searches and seizures of firearms"

Just slow down Waldo... take a few deep breaths! It just might help with your reading comprehension difficulty.....although I doubt it, as I do not believe you have the required intellect.

You lose. Sooner or later even you must be capable of figuring that out.

 

[waldo]

I know you love to be told what and how to think, but here is a hint for you:

When the RCMP are engaged in illegal activities, you do not take the word of the head of the RCMP that it is all OK.

That is what the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission is for....and they said:"Although the EMA granted RCMP members the lawful authority for warrantless entries in furtherance of the EOC's emergency plans, these statutory powers did not authorize searches and seizures of firearms"

you don't have to take the, as you say, "word of the head of the RCMP" in regards that same extract from the report; again this extract:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”​

ya see, dumbass Colpy, that very report validates the RCMP head's, 'Section 489 Criminal Code reference by highlighting the subset 489.1 in regards reporting seizures to a justice.

Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code.
​

Again, you're stuck on the same EOC reference you keep repeating... like I said, you've got to move along from there and look at the 2 statements you purposely omitted. Damn, are you stooopid... talk about YOUR reading comprehension failure, big time!

Just slow down Waldo... take a few deep breaths! It just might help with your reading comprehension difficulty.....although I doubt it, as I do not believe you have the required intellect.

You lose. Sooner or later even you must be capable of figuring that out.

and there we have you once again, as you perpetually do, over and over again, "claiming victory"!!! :mrgreen:

...You continually tout your so-called "expertise"... yet you're forever highlighting your lack of confidence in your own positions by having to continually declare victory... to perpetually pump yourself up!

 

[Colpy]

you don't have to take the, as you say, "word of the head of the RCMP" in regards that same extract from the report; again this extract:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”​

ya see, dumbass Colpy, that very report validates the RCMP head's, 'Section 489 Criminal Code reference by highlighting the subset 489.1 in regards reporting seizures to a justice.

Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code.
​

Again, you're stuck on the same EOC reference you keep repeating... like I said, you've got to move along from there and look at the 2 statements you purposely omitted. Damn, are you stooopid... talk about YOUR reading comprehension failure, big time!



and there we have you once again, as you perpetually do, over and over again, "claiming victory"!!! :mrgreen:

First of all, you are trolling. Even you can't really be this stupid.

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”

Really....once again, you do not ask the RCMP if the RCMP are breaking the law.

Idiot.

You are simply eager for attention. The Commission Report says very clearly that searches for firearms and contraband were outside the law....full stop.

They also point out, as you say, that any seizures made "Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code"

Guess what Moron? They did not "report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code", which means that they did not make the seizures under section 489.

Once again, these were illegal seizures, and the officers responsible should be disciplined.

You lose, and no amount of your BS will change that.

 

[CDNBear]

that would be YOU. Again, I've already addressed the causal ties that supported search, at large. Your problem is you're stuck on that.... you need to move along, lil' doggy... you need to move on to the next part; again, the 2 sentences you purposely omitted. These 2 sentences:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code. Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”
​

just slow down Colpy... take a few deep breaths! It just might help with your reading comprehension difficulty! :mrgreen:

A closed closet is not plain view.

You lose, and no amount of your BS will change that.

And yet you entertain his stupidity with the energy you put into lengthy replies.

Stop, before we're forced to have an intervention, man!

 

[waldo]

Really....once again, you do not ask the RCMP if the RCMP are breaking the law.

Idiot.

You are simply eager for attention. The Commission Report says very clearly that searches for firearms and contraband were outside the law....full stop.

no - the report does not, no matter how stoopid your interpretation is, no matter how hard you bluster and insult! What the report does do is state the EMA did not authorize searches/seizes of firearms. Immediately after that sentence the report then states:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code. Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”
​

and NO WHERE does the report state this CC S.489 is not a valid authorization. In fact, the report states it is... a qualified authorization.

now, like I said earlier:

now please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" circumstances. 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.
​

which wasn't complete... let me amend that to ensure your whine/wail also covers "some number" of "secured" firearms:

now please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" & "some number" of "secured" circumstances. 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.
​

not meeting the reporting to a justice sub-clause of CC S.489 certainly does not nullify the clause itself - perhaps you'd like to argue that before a court of law! :mrgreen: Through all this we have a smattering of die-hard gunNutz, who were evacuated, raising a "FREEDOM/RIGHTS" stink over "some number of guns that weren't in plain view and were properly secured". Bully; again, given the State of Emergency and active looting, I'm certainly willing to give the RCMP the latitude to protect themselves, other 1st responders,... and the 300 community members who refused to evacuate. This is again the point where you step in and provide yet another of your platitudes over murdered RCMP officers.

so let's show your blowhard blustering self for all it's worth... per the report:

is that it Colpy... 6 reported incidents, 3 of which come from the RCMP... with the report also stating "It is unclear whether any of these reports are duplicative." Damn, your mega whine/Freedom wail... over this? :mrgreen:

as I said, given the circumstances, I'm certainly willing to give the RCMP the latitude shown. But let's check the report on that account, particularly focused on the State of Emergency, public safety concerns and related circumstance:

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."

Colpy... this is me handing you your azz! You're welcome... Ya'll come back now! Ya hear? Ya, ya... bluster on about those 6 reported incidents (3 from the RCMP itself)... some of which may be duplicates!!! Colpy, the CC Forum's biggest... and baddest... BLOWHARD!

 

[DaSleeper]

Search and Seizure of Firearms

Although the EMA granted RCMP members the lawful authority for warrantless entries in furtherance of the EOC's emergency plans, these statutory powers did not authorize searches and seizures of firearms and contraband. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.
Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.” Furthermore, section 489.1 of the Criminal Code requires that all items seized be reported to a justice.
In a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority.
An alternate proposition advanced by the RCMP as a rationale for seizing the firearms was that members were also justified in seizing the unsecured firearms which they came across in plain view because they posed a threat to public safety. With the evacuation order in place, the RCMP was receiving reports of break-ins and thefts, and there were over 300 people who refused to evacuate, including one high-risk offender.
While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms. Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. The judicial oversight component of seizures cannot be overstated in the context of police officers taking personal property from a home. Parliament has indicated its desire to regulate the warrantless seizure of personal property in a manner that ensures police accountability, transparency and judicial oversight. Had the RCMP reported their seizures to the court, it may have addressed many of the concerns and criticisms from residents, the media, and politicians.

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/cha...tigation-rcmps-response-2013-flood-high-river


Since it was mean ole guns that were removed, that's OK with waldo......

 

[JamesBondo]

I am not aware of an extensive door to door search for children hiding in closets. Did police search all closets for children?

 

[waldo]

I am not aware of an extensive door to door search for children hiding in closets. Did police search all closets for children?

perhaps you should actually read the report... think of the kids, think of the kids! But yes, in a state of emergency with active looting, the search for persons (including children) was undertaken. I've provided extracts from the report that should avail your concern; if not, again, I suggest you read the report. Member Colpy should have done the same thing; however, his penchant is to Blow Hard, before doing any actual review/research!

 

[JamesBondo]

My question is simple, was this in fact a child hunt or gun hunt? if it was a child hunt, is there evidence and records that show they entered 100% of the buildings in the disaster zone?

Storing, Transporting and Displaying Firearms - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Storing Firearms Safely

Unload and lock your firearms!

Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms.

Non-restricted firearms

Attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock (or remove the bolt) so the firearms cannot be fired;

OR

Lock the firearms in a cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into.
locked container locked cabinet

Waldo,
what part of 'Locked house, firearm in closet, trigger locked or cable, magazine and ammo stored separately' do you not understand?"

 

[waldo]

My question is simple, was this in fact a child hunt or gun hunt? if it was a child hunt, is there evidence and records that show they entered 100% of the buildings in the disaster zone?

Waldo,
what part of 'Locked house, firearm in closet, trigger locked or cable, magazine and ammo stored separately' do you not understand?"

I suggest you (also) read the report for your answers. I provided an extract from the report that qualifies the state of emergency and public safety aspect influencing search, at large... and further report extract qualification that speaks to search/seizure of (unsecured) firearms. I look forward to your report analysis and feedback as to your concern for, "children versus guns".

I provided an extract from the report that speaks to a total of 6 incidents that fall into this concern over "secure" and/or "plain view"... 3 of which were brought forward by the RCMP itself... with a further qualification that, of these, it's not sure if there are duplicates within them. With even further qualification that there could have been an incident where there was a mix of secured and unsecured and the RCMP took both the secured & unsecured.

 

[Colpy]

no - the report does not, no matter how stoopid your interpretation is, no matter how hard you bluster and insult! What the report does do is state the EMA did not authorize searches/seizes of firearms. Immediately after that sentence the report then states:

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code. Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.”
​

and NO WHERE does the report state this CC S.489 is not a valid authorization. In fact, the report states it is... a qualified authorization.

now, like I said earlier:

now please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" circumstances. 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.
​

which wasn't complete... let me amend that to ensure your whine/wail also covers "some number" of "secured" firearms:

now please... proceed to whine/wail over "some number" of "not in plain view" & "some number" of "secured" circumstances. 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.
​

not meeting the reporting to a justice sub-clause of CC S.489 certainly does not nullify the clause itself - perhaps you'd like to argue that before a court of law! :mrgreen: Through all this we have a smattering of die-hard gunNutz, who were evacuated, raising a "FREEDOM/RIGHTS" stink over "some number of guns that weren't in plain view and were properly secured". Bully; again, given the State of Emergency and active looting, I'm certainly willing to give the RCMP the latitude to protect themselves, other 1st responders,... and the 300 community members who refused to evacuate. This is again the point where you step in and provide yet another of your platitudes over murdered RCMP officers.

so let's show your blowhard blustering self for all it's worth... per the report:

is that it Colpy... 6 reported incidents, 3 of which come from the RCMP... with the report also stating "It is unclear whether any of these reports are duplicative." Damn, your mega whine/Freedom wail... over this? :mrgreen:

as I said, given the circumstances, I'm certainly willing to give the RCMP the latitude shown. But let's check the report on that account, particularly focused on the State of Emergency, public safety concerns and related circumstance:

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."

Colpy... this is me handing you your azz! You're welcome... Ya'll come back now! Ya hear? Ya, ya... bluster on about those 6 reported incidents (3 from the RCMP itself)... some of which may be duplicates!!! Colpy, the CC Forum's biggest... and baddest... BLOWHARD!

First of all, you are the only person I know so fvcking stupid they would ask the RCMP if RCMP actions were illegal. That is why we have a Public Complaints Commission.

Secondly, closed in a closet is not "in plain sight"

Thirdly, for section 489 to be invoked, the seizures have to be registered with a judge. They were not, which makes any claim of seizure under 489 false. Which alone destroys your entire argument.

Fourth, this is the entire pertinent clause:

Although the EMA granted RCMP members the lawful authority for warrantless entries in furtherance of the EOC's emergency plans, these statutory powers did not authorize searches and seizures of firearms and contraband. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.
Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.” Furthermore, section 489.1 of the Criminal Code requires that all items seized be reported to a justice.
In a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority.

Please, oh absolutely brain-dead one, explain to me what part of the conclusion "the firearms were not removed with lawful authority" you fail to understand?

It does not matter how many pages of bullshyte you scrawl, or how insulting you get, your stance is absolutely ludicrous.

I really do not understand why the moderators have let you stay here, as you have not contributed a single valuable thing to any debate on any thread, you are obviously unintelligent, uncreative, a troll of gargantuan proportions, with no sense of humour, anything to say of the slightest value, without morals.

In short, you are a waste of oxygen.

 

[JamesBondo]

Waldo,

You seem to not understand that when a government body 'has the right to check closets for children during a state of emergency', it is a reasonable question to ask 'were you?' it is also reasonable to ask 'did you check all closets?'

There is no need to get yourself in a huffy over reasonable questions unless you find them very inconvenient.

 

[DaSleeper]

A few more posts like this Jimmy me boy, and you'll find yourself on his ignore list....:lol:

 

[waldo]

It does not matter how many pages of bullshyte you scrawl, or how insulting you get, your stance is absolutely ludicrous.

apparently, what you are calling bullshyte, are the direct extracts I've taken from the report. You know, the extracts that show all your blowhard bluster in glaring detail. In this last post of yours, you've simply repeated, again (for now at least the 4th time) the very same thing... the very same thing that does not hold up to the actual report. Again, you choose to selectively pull out pieces of the report and ignore everything else, particularly if it counters your selective draw. Of course, that is your way... that is your forever play in purposely taking things out of context. It's what you do; nothing more, nothing less! Again, as I've now done several times across several threads, nothing is sweeter than turning one of your own provided linked references back on you! :mrgreen:

I really do not understand why the moderators have let you stay here, as you have not contributed a single valuable thing to any debate on any thread, you are obviously unintelligent, uncreative, a troll of gargantuan proportions, with no sense of humour, anything to say of the slightest value, without morals.

In short, you are a waste of oxygen.

it burns, doesn't it Colpy? Having your charade unravel in front of you burns, doesn't it? Your whining drivel over insult is puurfect! I've proved just how much of the insultKing you are... when you've whined in the past, I've provided you post playbacks where I've highlighted just the reams and reams of insults you've thrown at me. And yes, I'm throwing back... but no where to your level... cause you're the insultKing! Along with being nothing more than a petulant BLOWHARD.

again, you've just had your azz handed to you... from the very linked reference you provided. Sweet! You're welcome - carry on! :mrgreen:

 

[JamesBondo]

... "in plain sight"...

.

If I check this link, Storing, Transporting and Displaying Firearms - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

I can legally 'display' a non-restricted firearm on a wall rack, provided that I've secured the firearm with a trigger lock or cable.

There is no mention of securing it to the wall, or locking the room. Those are actions that go above and beyond legal requirements for a non-restricted firearm.

 

[waldo]

Waldo,

You seem to not understand that when a government body 'has the right to check closets for children during a state of emergency', it is a reasonable question to ask 'were you?' it is also reasonable to ask 'did you check all closets?'

There is no need to get yourself in a huffy over reasonable questions unless you find them very inconvenient.

you asked me to answer a question. I suggested you read the report for your answers. Of course, the underlying premise to your question was that, "guns were being searched for", in the name of, "people being searched for". I didn't read anything in the report that speaks to such a premise. Hence, why I suggested you read the report yourself, review it and provide feedback. Is that a problem for you... to read the report yourself?

 

[JamesBondo]

...you asked me to answer a question. I suggested you read the report for your answers...

Back when I was a troll, that is the way I answered reasonable questions. How is that working for you?

 

[CDNBear]

Back when I was a troll...

That's the way he answers most questions that make him uncomfortable, or shoot holes in his own trolling.

That's because he is a troll.

 

[waldo]

Back when I was a troll, that is the way I answered reasonable questions. How is that working for you?

it seems to me you're still a troll in this exchange regard! You weren't even up front about your "reasonable" question; hence, why I relayed your underlying premise in my last post.... that the underlying premise to your question was that, "guns were being searched for", in the name of, "people being searched for".

Again, as I said, I didn't read anything in the report to support your underlying premise. Again, I suggest you read the actual report yourself and look for anything to support your underlying premise. I look forward to your feedback response.