I’m just talking about LEO’s here, you will need to pass a psyche exam and a defensive firearms course where you get tested on your knowledge and use of force option. You still have to qualify every year in the use of your firearm, then you have to be able to demonstrate that you still know how to use your force options every 3 years. If you don’t pass your scenario’s, your firearm gets taken away and you get re-evaluated. You have to go through training, counselling, and then evaluated again.

Had a petite Young rcmp lady madder than hell because the liquor store would not serve her, had no id or drivers license on her, ****ed right of at the teller pointing at the sign saying if you look under 25 will be asked for ID. Same store has been stung by undercover before.

So if I read this right, a cop hater or few saw him practicing with his duty gear, were jealous and whined about it. Now this man sworn to protect these stupid 'also gun owners' idiots have cost him a career and likely criminal charges?

I hope there is more to it.

I completely agree with your analysis.

x2

I was really hoping that I had misread it, but apparently these selfish mental midgets did what I think.

The entire Police force in Canada needs to stay home for an extended period of time. Show these morons what life will look like without law enforcement. Same as the Defund the Police protestors, although that seems to have slid back under the feces pits.

X3

Agreed.
In the end no one was hurt except a few snowflakes gut their butt hurt.

Or other range members saw a person in civilian clothes, shooting a prohibited firearm on the range and reported it to the executive, who investigated, identified the person and made their report to the CFO and police as they are supposed to do, when someone is committing an illegal act on the premises.

I have had exactly that happen at our range, but the people with the AR were still present when I got there, so I chose to remind them of the range rules, and asked them to remove the AR from the premises immediately. I was not aware that they were law enforcement, until one of them flashed a badge. At that point I told them again to remove the AR as the rules applied to everyone, after a bit of hesitation by the one that flashed the badge, they left. Had they refused to leave, the local police would have been called, and a report would have been filed with the CFO.

Here's a idea.
Have a range policy that LEOs are identified as such (ID card, signage) and only they are allowed to shoot weapons that are prohibited to us and must be ones that they are authorized to use.
That would promote good police/recreational shooter relations.

You know what would be really helpful?
 

If the usual AO cheerleading squad of "LEOs Can Do No Wrong" would put their thinking caps on and come up with a list of laws that LEOs can break with impunity. Every single "that doesn't matter because LEO" that they can think of. Not talking about the existing legal exemptions while doing their job, just the ones you don't think they should be held accountable for, even though the law doesn't explicitly state it.
Put the list in writing and present it to the membership for discussion.
Should be entertaining. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

If these charges hold up in court, and the courts decide that officers are not allowed to use prohibited firearms when off duty, it's a non issue, a range can't knowingly allow illegal activities to take place on the premises. If the charges don't hold up, it will be up to the membership to decide if they want to make an exception for law enforcement. But as angry as most range members were when the OIC came out, if this case is dismissed, they will be even more angry, so I don't see that happening.

A lot of what ifs

Just as likely as the other scenario that was presented, especially given that I have actually had range members report the use of prohibited firearms on our range, and neither the people making the report or myself knew the offenders were officers, until one of them showed me a badge.

But the bottom line, is that if the courts decide the officer violated the regulations that he is paid to enforce, it doesn't matter how it got reported, he will be a convicted criminal, because of his own actions.

Well let's hope that the charges get dropped and he can get back to practicing his shooting skills.
I like the idea of cops being able to hit their target.

Here's my take on the whole range use/ prihib/ restricted thing and I have discussed thus with the other RSO's at our range.
As an RSO it is my duty to ensure that our range safety rules and procedures are followed , it is NOT to be an expert on what is currently prohibited and what is not .
However there are some firearms that I am familiar with and will inform the shooter they can't use them on our range . The .50 BMG is one .
There are so many legal semi autos that use larger than 5 round magazines that I don't bother looking at any of them as long as they are being used safely .
Cat

I don't care if a person on our range has a PAL, RPAL, 12.6 authorization or a book of the month club card as long as long as they are using their firearms safely and within our club rules.
I don't know enough about the different pistols, rifles, shotguns and accessories to make a call on a prohib unless it is glaring, like a .50 BMG
Cat

I often wondered what happened to the two RCMP officers that shot up the Nova Scotia fire hall?? We just recently had a Traffic Cop who was working on his patrol “carbine” in the weigh station go off. Shattered a window and missed the girl checking boats coming into the province. No charges????

An AR is easy to identify for most people, and when the user is dumping 20-30 rounds of rapid fire without changing magazines, it gets people's attention, and the complaints start rolling in. Then we have no choice but to investigate' because we can't illegal firearms/magazines to be used at our facility.

20-30 rounds of rapid fire with no magazine change gets people's attention, and the complaints start rolling in. Then we have no choice, but to investigate the complaints. And with all volunteers, that is time we don't need to waste, which is why we added the rule banning prohibited firearms, except for official law enforcement activities. If a person fired five rounds at a normal pace, and then changed magazines, most people wouldn't notice.

There are also a lot of legal variants of " black rifles " that are legal using 9mm. And other smaller cartridges with mags over 5 rounds
My main focus is for open actions in the rack and safe handling on the line , nothing more .
Cat

There are legal 10 round magazines , but I am not aware of legal 20-30 round mags, and that is what leads to most complaints.

I have never encountered anyone at our range that counts the number of rounds someone is shooting without a mag change .:thinking-006:
Cat

When you hear 20-30 rounds as fast as a person can pull the trigger, it's pretty obvious. When I was VP at your range, I was called over by an RSO because a guy had a 30 round pistol magazine and was seeing how fast he could dump 30 rounds. He saw us coming, and hid the magazine in his bag, but we sent him off of the premises and told him never to bring the magazine back.

Our position is if a person wants to complain they can phone the RCMP we will not do it for them
Cat

If the CFO starts getting complaints that we are allowing prohibited firearm/magazines on our premises, and the executive refuses to take action to prevent it, we could have our range approvals revoked. We aren't willing to risk that.

Like I said in the other forum I don't keep track of what is legal and what is not and frankly don't care.
Cat

We care only because if the CFO gets complaints from people that we are allowing prohibited firearms/magazines on the premises, and ignoring complaints about this, he can revoke our range approvals. Our priority is keeping our range open.

Blame Trudeau, Blair, and their OIC. They're the ones who created this mess. I wonder what's next after his re-election?

How are some of you so confident this guy even identified him self as rcmp maybe he was just using his duty mags and was reported as any good range member should report illegal activities at the range, It could have came out after. Police are not above the law when off duty he should have known better and done better.