RCMP Officer Charged For Using Service Firearms Off Duty

[elkhunter11]

https://www.canadapolicereport.ca/20...V8ZRmNC9t9q0pk

Our range and others have already put rules in place that prohibit anyone including law enforcement from using prohibited firearms on our ranges, except when law enforcement has the range booked for official police activities.

[alacringa]

He should have known better. I wonder what the RCMP will decide to do with him once he has processed through the courts.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by alacringa

He should have known better. I wonder what the RCMP will decide to do with him once he has processed through the courts.

He isn't the only one , we have had to ask a few off duty officers to remover their service firearms from our range.

[Smokinyotes]

He is a cop so I would imagine he will probably get off because most of them are above the law.

[tikka250]

Never knew that was not allowed. Should send this to the gentleman I know who has taken his service pistol to gravel pits

[normanrd]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

He is a cop so I would imagine he will probably get off because most of them are above the law.

Exactly. Am I the only one who thinks that being "suspended with pay" while under a criminal investigation or awaiting court is a load of b.s.? It's like a paid vacay while you wait to be bailed out by your buddies.

[antmai]

Still blows my mind how the majority of police services do not require even a PAL for their members.
But in the end, I am sure this RC's feelings were hurt and shame on any court, panel or board that may hold a level of accountability on the infraction.

[Savage Bacon]

Using over capacity magazines also. Do rcmp officers even use over capacity magazines?

[barsik]

that's totally stupid. the law as it is written forbids officers to go to the range while off duty with the very same firearms they strap on while on duty? what moron added that to the criminal code? forgive me if any members here are offended by my rant.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by barsik

that's totally stupid. the law as it is written forbids officers to go to the range while off duty with the very same firearms they strap on while on duty? what moron added that to the criminal code? forgive me if any members here are offended by my rant.

I can tell you why our range, and many others don't allow officers to use their service firearms outside of official police bookings. When people without uniforms do magazine dumps of 20 rounds or more, they attract attention and our members complain . Then the executive has to investigate the complaints, in case illegal activities are taking place at our facility. If we allow illegal activities on our premises, the CFO can revoke our range approvals, and shut us down.We are all volunteers, and having to investigate these complaints takes time, and then we have to report back to the unhappy members that complained, that the people they reported are police using their service firearms. And that takes more time that we don't want to waste, and still leaves other members unhappy.
So to avoid all of this hassle, we just enact rules that prohibit anyone from using prohibited firearms on our ranges, with the exception of law enforcement, during law enforcement range bookings.
So even if it was legal for off duty officers to shoot their service firearms on a range, we won't allow it on our range, and neither will many other ranges.

[Headdamage]

Just West of Edmonton in the early 90's an RCMP officer used his service weapon to kill a Whitetail deer and then loaded it into the trunk of his patrol car. This was not an injured deer it was him doing some opportunistic harvesting. He got some desk duty or something when it came to light, nothing more.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by barsik

that's totally stupid. the law as it is written forbids officers to go to the range while off duty with the very same firearms they strap on while on duty? what moron added that to the criminal code? forgive me if any members here are offended by my rant.

Many of the firearms PEO's use are actually illegal for Civilians, and many LEO's in Canada do not have an RPAL to begin with.
When an officer is off duty , he must abide by the the law, although many do not.
if they are on our range they must be in uniform and authorized by their duty RSO, as in training or testing.
Some really stupid and unsafe stunts were cause buy the RCMP at our range in years past, some off duty and some on duty.
This resulted in our banning them from our range for a number of years unless they were members as civilians and it caused a big riff between them and us.
Since then, their RSO as well as their attitude have changed , and we once again have a very good relationship with them.
Cat

[troutbug]

Interesting, I would like to hear what type of firearms he had exactly? Funny how they have no issue naming rifles' "assault rifles" and such whenever guns make it in the news but are fairly quiet when it is one of there own.

https://strathmorenow.com/stories/st...WvzURwwClSCSHA

[Cement Bench]

hope he goes to jail, as he and most of his buddies would charge you faster than rifle lock time

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Cement Bench

hope he goes to jail, as he and most of his buddies would charge you faster than rifle lock time

he will get his day in court like we would too

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I can tell you why our range, and many others don't allow officers to use their service firearms outside of official police bookings. When people without uniforms do magazine dumps of 20 rounds or more, they attract attention and our members complain . Then the executive has to investigate the complaints, in case illegal activities are taking place at our facility. If we allow illegal activities on our premises, the CFO can revoke our range approvals, and shut us down.We are all volunteers, and having to investigate these complaints takes time, and then we have to report back to the unhappy members that complained, that the people they reported are police using their service firearms. And that takes more time that we don't want to waste, and still leaves other members unhappy.
So to avoid all of this hassle, we just enact rules that prohibit anyone from using prohibited firearms on our ranges, with the exception of law enforcement, during law enforcement range bookings.
So even if it was legal for off duty officers to shoot their service firearms on a range, we won't allow it on our range, and neither will many other ranges.

That’s fair enough equality for all.

This fella will get his day in court and then do the hatless dance in front of his superiors too....man I remember the stuff we use to do during my army days and wow when the hammer came down it was not pleasant hard lessons learnt

[heybert]

Originally Posted by troutbug

Interesting, I would like to hear what type of firearms he had exactly? Funny how they have no issue naming rifles' "assault rifles" and such whenever guns make it in the news but are fairly quiet when it is one of there own.

https://strathmorenow.com/stories/st...WvzURwwClSCSHA

If it’s their issued firearm, it would be a S&W 5946. Mag, I believe, carries 15.

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by heybert

If it’s their issued firearm, it would be a S&W 5946. Mag, I believe, carries 15.

Based on the charges, he was using the carbine. The OIC they are committed to enforcing put their carbines on the prohibited list.
It's convenient that he stepped up to be made an example of.

Following an investigation, the officer was charged with Possession of a Firearm While Unauthorized, Possession of a Prohibited Firearm, and Possession of a Prohibited Device (over-capacity magazine)

[heybert]

Originally Posted by urban rednek

Based on the charges, he was using the carbine. The OIC they are committed to enforcing put their carbines on the prohibited list.
It's convenient that he stepped up to be made an example of.

A 5946 is also prohibited since it has a 4” barrel, plus a high cap mag. If he doesn’t have a 12.6 like us old guys, then he is also unauthorized.

[mediumrare]

Suspended with pay.life is tough

[trigger7mm]

Originally Posted by mediumrare

Suspended with pay.life is tough

No kidding. Time to go hunting!

[catnthehat]

Here is Runkle's take on it, very interesting.
Now in case people are wondering WHY the RCMP and Military personal do not require and RPAL is because they do regular qualifications with their firearms as well as their initial firearms training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pN9h0yTZgU
Cat

[Bushrat]

In an ideal world he wouldn't be getting charged with anything as there would be no restrictions against what he did and he would be able to shoot with us with our restricted guns at any gravel pit or makeshift gun range or crown land since they wouldn't be restricted either.

[catnthehat]

It's in the guns and ammo forum as well.
Cat
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=403361

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Now in case people are wondering WHY the RCMP and Military personal do not require and RPAL is because they do regular qualifications with their firearms as well as their initial firearms training.
Cat

The reason that LEO's and Military personnel do not require an RPAL is that a considerable percentage of them could not pass the regular security checks that are applied to civilians with an RPAL. Concerns that would cause the CFO to forfeit your RPAL do not apply to them.
This is simply their way to get around the rules.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by urban rednek

The reason that LEO's and Military personnel do not require an RPAL is that a considerable percentage of them could not pass the regular security checks that are applied to civilians with an RPAL. Concerns that would cause the CFO to forfeit your RPAL do not apply to them.
This is simply their way to get around the rules.

That is about the biggest load of BS I have seen here for a while!
Cat

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

In an ideal world he wouldn't be getting charged with anything as there would be no restrictions against what he did and he would be able to shoot with us with our restricted guns at any gravel pit or makeshift gun range or crown land since they wouldn't be restricted either.

Exactly, unfortunately common sense was not considered when our Canadian firearms regulations were drafted. Having the RCMP caught up the stupidity is ironic, but not a bad thing to happen.

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

That is about the biggest load of BS I have seen here for a while!
Cat

You are entitled to your opinion, doesn't mean you're right.

LEO's and other first responders are statistically more likely to suffer Behavioural Health Concerns than the general population. Health concerns that could cause the forfeiture of a PAL/RPAL without the professional courtesy that is afforded their position.

As for military personnel? Same, but with even more off-base violence.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by urban rednek

You are entitled to your opinion, doesn't mean you're right.

LEO's and other first responders are statistically more likely to suffer Behavioural Health Concerns than the general population. Health concerns that could cause the forfeiture of a PAL/RPAL without the professional courtesy that is afforded their position.

As for military personnel? Same, but with even more off-base violence.

And do you think for a second that every civilian out there is stable enough to hold a PAL?
After doing RSO duties for many years , I have come to the conclusion that the number of responsible firearms owners are drastically outnumbered by those who should never be near them.
The number of unstable construction workers I know that have mental issues far exceeds what most people would consider " normal", in fact it amazes the number of nut bars that actually HAVE current RPALs!
Cat

[thumper]

Do LEOs require a Drivers License ? Or does their motor vehicle job training exempt them of that requirement too ?