Stolen rifle /calgary police

[Ron J]

In my past life (pre retirement), part of my job was reviewing firearms related files with the EPS, and I have read thousands of police reports involving firearms. I can tell you that some people have bad luck, and I think this police member is one of them. Sure, he did not use good judgement in taking the gun home, but having his vehicle broken into while stopped at a restaurant is bad luck, but it happens. A file that comes to mind for me is a guy who is going to the range to shoot his handguns and stops at a Tim Horton's for a coffee. He is gone about 10 minutes, and in that time someone broke into his vehicle and stole his handguns in broad daylight. The investigator in that case wanted to know which charges should be laid against the gun owner, and my recommendation was none. There is a provision in the criminal code that says it is an offence not to report a lost or stolen firearm. That means that any statement given to the police in relation to that lost or stolen firearm cannot be used against the gun owner.
I could go on for hours with stories of ordinary gun owners being charged in circumstances which I considered unreasonable, but that is not the point of this thread. If it comes out that this police member is not charged with any firearms offences, I just want the members of this forum to know that is not due to any backroom shenanigans. The member involved will still have to deal with the internal repercussions, but I have no idea of those will be made public. Just my two cents worth.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by toomanyhobbies

It's pretty sad that comments on here show almost the same level of ignorance and outright hatred as the public comments on the Calgary Herald website.

I'm thinking a lot of you supposed gun owners need to go read the regulations again as you seem to have no idea what they actually say. We know that they are poorly written, vague and sometimes contradictory, but have we not had these discussions dozens of times already to sort out the truth of the matter?

Exactly, pretty scary when people are saying that stopping for food while transporting is illegal, that storing/transporting mags with a firearm is illegal or that a case needs to be locked in a trunk when a vehicle is unattended.

Really makes you wonder a) how they passed their PAL/RPAL and b) what other laws they are ignorant of.

[DiabeticKripple]

i think the reason for taking the loaded mags home is they were already locked in the case probably when he was on duty, and its just easier to grab the case and go than to open it, and leave the mags.

i know id just grab the case.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by whiteout

Exactly, pretty scary when people are saying that stopping for food while transporting is illegal, that storing/transporting mags with a firearm is illegal or that a case needs to be locked in a trunk when a vehicle is unattended.

Really makes you wonder a) how they passed their PAL/RPAL and b) what other laws they are ignorant of.

Here you go.

What laws are you ignorant of that you are enforcing?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r...age-4.html#h-9

TRANSPORTATION OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS

11. An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;

(c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and

(d) if it is in a container described in paragraph (c) that is in an unattended vehicle,

(i) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and

(ii) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.


Seems pretty clear to me..

As for the stopping for fuel, food, etc. When I took my PAL and RPAL I was told by my instuctor that it was the law you needed to take the most direct route from the range back to your residence. No unreasonable stops. Ie) Stopping for a beverage or food...

[recce43]

and don't forget about the illegal car searches they where doing at crowfoot ..

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by recce43

and don't forget about the illegal car searches they where doing at crowfoot ..

how are they illegal?

as far as i know, they just walked around looking at them, not entering them

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by Ron J

In my past life (pre retirement), part of my job was reviewing firearms related files with the EPS, and I have read thousands of police reports involving firearms. I can tell you that some people have bad luck, and I think this police member is one of them. Sure, he did not use good judgement in taking the gun home, but having his vehicle broken into while stopped at a restaurant is bad luck, but it happens. A file that comes to mind for me is a guy who is going to the range to shoot his handguns and stops at a Tim Horton's for a coffee. He is gone about 10 minutes, and in that time someone broke into his vehicle and stole his handguns in broad daylight. The investigator in that case wanted to know which charges should be laid against the gun owner, and my recommendation was none. There is a provision in the criminal code that says it is an offence not to report a lost or stolen firearm. That means that any statement given to the police in relation to that lost or stolen firearm cannot be used against the gun owner.
I could go on for hours with stories of ordinary gun owners being charged in circumstances which I considered unreasonable, but that is not the point of this thread. If it comes out that this police member is not charged with any firearms offences, I just want the members of this forum to know that is not due to any backroom shenanigans. The member involved will still have to deal with the internal repercussions, but I have no idea of those will be made public. Just my two cents worth.

Thank you for your service.

However by your own admission there is no consistiency for laying the charges. You made reccomendations for no charges yet you also say there are unreasonable charges made.

Were there any instances where you reccomended charges and charges were not laid?

[Masterchief]

Originally Posted by Ron J

In my past life (pre retirement), part of my job was reviewing firearms related files with the EPS, and I have read thousands of police reports involving firearms. I can tell you that some people have bad luck, and I think this police member is one of them. Sure, he did not use good judgement in taking the gun home, but having his vehicle broken into while stopped at a restaurant is bad luck, but it happens. A file that comes to mind for me is a guy who is going to the range to shoot his handguns and stops at a Tim Horton's for a coffee. He is gone about 10 minutes, and in that time someone broke into his vehicle and stole his handguns in broad daylight. The investigator in that case wanted to know which charges should be laid against the gun owner, and my recommendation was none. There is a provision in the criminal code that says it is an offence not to report a lost or stolen firearm. That means that any statement given to the police in relation to that lost or stolen firearm cannot be used against the gun owner.
I could go on for hours with stories of ordinary gun owners being charged in circumstances which I considered unreasonable, but that is not the point of this thread. If it comes out that this police member is not charged with any firearms offences, I just want the members of this forum to know that is not due to any backroom shenanigans. The member involved will still have to deal with the internal repercussions, but I have no idea of those will be made public. Just my two cents worth.

Thanks for you insight... I think he is in enough trouble already, but it's interesting to see that common sense sometimes prevails in cases like this for civilians as well

[recce43]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

how are they illegal?

as far as i know, they just walked around looking at them, not entering them

Then, after the theft was reported, it appears police set up roadblocks and arbitrarily searched cars and opened trunks as they left the Crowfoot area, causing a storm of protest over social media

[greylynx]

The story continues:


http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/05/ca...-from-his-car/

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by NEWB

Here you go.

What laws are you ignorant of that you are enforcing?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r...age-4.html#h-9

TRANSPORTATION OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS

11. An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;

(c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and

(d) if it is in a container described in paragraph (c) that is in an unattended vehicle,

(i) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and

(ii) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.


Seems pretty clear to me..

As for the stopping for fuel, food, etc. When I took my PAL and RPAL I was told by my instuctor that it was the law you needed to take the most direct route from the range back to your residence. No unreasonable stops. Ie) Stopping for a beverage or food...

So it doesn't NEED to be in a trunk then.

As for stopping. Per the ATT that most every RPAL holder will have,

firearms must be transported by a route that, in all circumstances, is reasonably direct

. The qualifier is "reasonable". There are plenty of circumstances where it would be considered reasonable to stop for gas, food, washroom break or stay at a hotel. If a question concerning reasonableness is raised, it will be up to you to explain why your actions were reasonable and a judge will decide.

[michaelmicallef]

I can't help but wonder what the person who stole this rifle is going to do with it. Sell it? I think if that was his motive he is going to have to have some pretty bad azz connections. Or keep it just I case he thinks he may use it. He must know buy now who this rifle belongs too.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by whiteout

So it doesn't NEED to be in a trunk then.

As for stopping. Per the ATT that most every RPAL holder will have, . The qualifier is "reasonable". There are plenty of circumstances where it would be considered reasonable to stop for gas, food, washroom break or stay at a hotel. If a question concerning reasonableness is raised, it will be up to you to explain why your actions were reasonable and a judge will decide.

A Calgary cop doesn't need to stop at a Calgary restraunt on his way to his Calgary home.

[toomanyhobbies]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

A Calgary cop doesn't need to stop at a Calgary restraunt on his way to his Calgary home.

Who died and made you king? Childish statements aren't helping our cause.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by toomanyhobbies

Who died and made you king? Childish statements aren't helping our cause.

Speaking of childish statements..... Could he not of dropped the firearm at home and then went for a brew?

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Ron J

In my past life (pre retirement), part of my job was reviewing firearms related files with the EPS, and I have read thousands of police reports involving firearms. I can tell you that some people have bad luck, and I think this police member is one of them. Sure, he did not use good judgement in taking the gun home, but having his vehicle broken into while stopped at a restaurant is bad luck, but it happens. A file that comes to mind for me is a guy who is going to the range to shoot his handguns and stops at a Tim Horton's for a coffee. He is gone about 10 minutes, and in that time someone broke into his vehicle and stole his handguns in broad daylight. The investigator in that case wanted to know which charges should be laid against the gun owner, and my recommendation was none. There is a provision in the criminal code that says it is an offence not to report a lost or stolen firearm. That means that any statement given to the police in relation to that lost or stolen firearm cannot be used against the gun owner.
I could go on for hours with stories of ordinary gun owners being charged in circumstances which I considered unreasonable, but that is not the point of this thread. If it comes out that this police member is not charged with any firearms offences, I just want the members of this forum to know that is not due to any backroom shenanigans. The member involved will still have to deal with the internal repercussions, but I have no idea of those will be made public. Just my two cents worth.

spot on good comment

bringing it home to clean it with the best of intentions and the worst of luck...

[Okotokian]

Loved all the comments from the uninformed idiots about how if it had been a civilian they would have been in cuffs, etc. For all we know the officer might have been following every part of the regulations regarding transporting firearms. I'm assuming a semi-automatic service rifle is likely classed as restricted. If a civilian follows these rules and their car is broken into, they should be fine.:

TRANSPORTATION OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS


11. An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if

• (a) it is unloaded;
• (b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;
• (c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and
• (d) if it is in a container described in paragraph (c) that is in an unattended vehicle,
  • (i) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and
  • (ii) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.

Now he may have been breaking Department rules, I don't know. But that's another matter.

[DiabeticKripple]

what if he was driving a subaru impreza? its a hatchback car so no "trunk"

i love the people in the comment section on the news site stating they are gun owners, and that it is illegal to store the ammo with the gun, as well as have loaded magazines. it is perfectly legal to store a loaded magazine with a gun, in a locked case.

[tacomama]

Imprezas come in Hatchback or Sedan (With a trunk).....

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by tacomama

Imprezas come in Hatchback or Sedan (With a trunk).....

im talking hatchback version.

[tacomama]

Those hatchbacks also have a trunk roll-out cover, and there is no way that pelican case would fit in an impreza hatchbacks's trunk. Unless the back seats are down of course and its partly in the trunk....

[silverdoctor]

What makes more sense here...?

The officers car was the only car that got broken into from the sounds of it. Is it more likely that he left a pelican case in the open for all to see?

Or that someone broke into his Subaru - i'll give the benefit that it's a sedan with a trunk - and targetted the C8?

The CPS is making a big stink here, being public about quite a bit.

What does make more sense to you? It makes sense to me that he was careless. Definitely broke CPS policies on a few levels - and he shouldn't have had the C8 in his car to begin with. Those are the superintendents words, not mine.

Now, if this firearm does get used in a crime or someone dies because of it...

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by whiteout

So it doesn't NEED to be in a trunk then.

As for stopping. Per the ATT that most every RPAL holder will have, . The qualifier is "reasonable". There are plenty of circumstances where it would be considered reasonable to stop for gas, food, washroom break or stay at a hotel. If a question concerning reasonableness is raised, it will be up to you to explain why your actions were reasonable and a judge will decide.

It needs to be out of sight... If there is a trunk then it needs to be in a trunk.
If its in a hatchback or SUV then covered and out of sight..

Is reasonable going to Shanks like the officer did?

If it is then im making all kinds of stops after hitting the range!

Whiteout,

What LEO division are you in? What is your rank, name and badge number.

I can then use what you say verbatim should I get stopped.

Thanks in advance,

[Redfrog]

Regardless of how much legal gun owners are persecuted, prosecuted and harassed by the media, I still find it unsettling to hear that a police officer is driving around, and drinking with a machine gun in his vehicle, I mean Assault rifle, I mean carbine. Yeah that's it a carbine. And he wasn't drinking while he was driving, but he had been drinking for sometime, prior to the incident with the assault ....er carbine.

When was the last time anyone heard of a firearm theft being reported and having the cops set up a roadblock and search vehicles? Anyone? Ever?

[whiteout]

The wording is in black and white on the ATT you have from the RCMP/CFP. Saying that you can only go from range to point of storage directly and without reasonable stops would preclude anyone from going to competitions, driving to a range in another city or driving to pick up a newly purchased firearm.

Using the wording found on the ATT, you are required to take a reasonably direct route. If you were to stop at a bar on the way home from the range, you'd need to explain why that stop is reasonable. If you stopped to get gas on a 650km trip you took to pick up a gun, you'd need to explain why stopping for gas was reasonable. Reasonable isn't defined and would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[Okotokian]

Bit confused. reports talk of a semi-auto, yet the police spokesman said it was a C8. Aren't C8's fully automatic and used by the Canadian Forces and other militaries too?

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Bit confused. reports talk of a semi-auto, yet the police spokesman said it was a C8. Aren't C8's fully automatic and used by the Canadian Forces and other militaries too?

the police use a semi auto variant of the C8.

military = full auto
police = semi auto

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Bit confused. reports talk of a semi-auto, yet the police spokesman said it was a C8. Aren't C8's fully automatic and used by the Canadian Forces and other militaries too?

When I Googled it came up as a full auto, and the mags without the rivet would be considered prohibited. I can't find a reference to a semi auto C8. here is Colts specs:

http://coltcanada.com/c8-carbines.html

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Ron J

In my past life (pre retirement), part of my job was reviewing firearms related files with the EPS, and I have read thousands of police reports involving firearms. I can tell you that some people have bad luck, and I think this police member is one of them. Sure, he did not use good judgement in taking the gun home, but having his vehicle broken into while stopped at a restaurant is bad luck, but it happens. A file that comes to mind for me is a guy who is going to the range to shoot his handguns and stops at a Tim Horton's for a coffee. He is gone about 10 minutes, and in that time someone broke into his vehicle and stole his handguns in broad daylight. The investigator in that case wanted to know which charges should be laid against the gun owner, and my recommendation was none. There is a provision in the criminal code that says it is an offence not to report a lost or stolen firearm. That means that any statement given to the police in relation to that lost or stolen firearm cannot be used against the gun owner.
I could go on for hours with stories of ordinary gun owners being charged in circumstances which I considered unreasonable, but that is not the point of this thread. If it comes out that this police member is not charged with any firearms offences, I just want the members of this forum to know that is not due to any backroom shenanigans. The member involved will still have to deal with the internal repercussions, but I have no idea of those will be made public. Just my two cents worth.

I do not know if the officer in this case should be charged or not, as all the facts are not out yet, and may never be. With all due respect, if you are not "in the loop", there is no way you could know that backroom shenanigans took place or not.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

When I Googled it came up as a full auto, and the mags without the rivet would be considered prohibited. I can't find a reference to a semi auto C8. here is Colts specs:

http://coltcanada.com/c8-carbines.html

There is more than one version of the C-8.Thankfully, the police get a semi auto version.

From that same Coltcanada site.

The C8 can be custom-configured to meet any operational requirements.