RCMP Check Stops Near Whitecourt

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by hogsmoker

I called the detachment in Whitecourt, because we are heading up to GP in the next couple of weeks. A lady answererd the phone and she asked the officer in the detachment if a trigger lock had to be on the gun when transporting a gun and he said "YES". I guess I will have to buy some trigger locks, if this is the wrong answer Jigs you better educate the RCMP in Whitecourt.

Your playing into their hopes of the Sheeple doing what the men with the yellow stipes say, even if it is dead wrong.
Rugersingle and I will be going right trough there next week. Now where did I put that old rear window gun rack?
I'm itching to tilt a few good wind mills.

[redcoat01]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Your playing into their hopes of the Sheeple doing what the men with the yellow stipes say, even if it is dead wrong.
Rugersingle and I will be going right trough there next week. Now where did I put that old rear window gun rack?
I'm itching to tilt a few good wind mills.

Dick ........ Whats does being confrontational PROVE , There is little doubt that Mounties are wrong with this practice . Lets face it some of the comments on this thread are true and not all Mounties should be Mounties. I would say that hold true in any profession?.

I also totally agree that there are many Junior RCMP Members who are not as well versed as they should be in the Canadian Firearm legislation and many are out of bounds when it comes to authoritys that exist within the act.Lets identify these Officers from whitecourt and not paint all RCMP members with the same brush.

Write a letter to the RCMP Commanding Officer R.KNECHT in Edmonton K Division HQ with your complaints about the members improprieties and the safe transportation provision. Before management can repair a problem they have to be made aware of it . I not saying that its right and yes they should be all trained , however lets not forget their human. I wouldn't want to live in world without law enforcement..

[Jamie]

Jigs, I also am very interested in knowing a bit more here.
#1 are you RCMP
#2 Were the hunters breaking RCMP procedure or Laws?
#3 please explain again why they were cuffed?

Your explanation has raised some very serrious questions.

Thanks
Jamie

[rugatika]

Can the police even force you out of a vehicle let alone handcuff and detain you without laying charges? That is to say that if I roll through one of these checkstops with an unloaded rifle in plain view, no trigger lock, and having commited no crime...do I have to get out of the vehicle? Can I not ask them what I am being charged with...and if I'm not being charged with anything can I not tell them to bugger off and pound salt?? What could they possibly charge me with?? If they force me out of my vehicle then can they charge me with improper firearm storage since I am no longer in the immediate presence of the firearm?

I am baffled that mere weeks after a similar screw-up by RCMP in Dawson Creek the same SNAFU would occur in Whitecourt. Do these guys have phones or something? Maybe an RCMP bulletin board telling officers not to go around making up laws to terrorize law-abiding citizens?

This whole incident just leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth and I think it is incumbent upon someone from the RCMP to clear this up pretty damn fast. And when I say clear this up I don't mean they should circle the wagons and start trying to antagonize anyone that is critical of them.

Sorry again for seeming to rant on the police, but they are really digging themselves a big hole if they keep this crap up as far as public opinion and trust goes.

[canuck]

Originally Posted by jigs

I would like to shed some light on this topic.
I was working this checkstop and was privy to most of the actions taken. Firstly the cops involved were very polite, professional and even had a sense of humour. The individuals confronted, had firearms in their vehicle, uncased, unlocked and in plain view. OMG
On a public highway should they not be cased?
Why???
When the police saw this they must follow procedure. The fellows were handcuffed and put in the back seat of the cop car. The mounties then checked backgrounds, looked for outstanding warrants, and made sure the guns were not stolen etc. For all they knew these folks could have been involved in a recent crime.
Yeah, like enjoying thier retirement
Once the men were cleared they were given their guns back and sent on their way. Charges could have been laid but were not. One of the men even thanked the lead officer.
Charges should be considered against officers who abuse thier powers
Several groups of hunters were stopped over the 2 days and not detained because their guns were properly stored. The message here is to follow the rules.
Uhhhh.... they were
The police have a hard job and the last thing they need is to take criticism for following procedure, giving a hunter a break and using discretion.My job is hard too, but I do my best to know what it is. These officers need to be schooled on the law before being put on the street

[pogo]

Originally Posted by jigs

I would like to shed some light on this topic.

I was working this checkstop and was privy to most of the actions taken. Firstly the cops involved were very polite, professional and even had a sense of humour. The individuals confronted, had firearms in their vehicle, uncased, unlocked and in plain view. On a public highway should they not be cased?
The fellows were handcuffed and put in the back seat of the cop car. The mounties then checked backgrounds, looked for outstanding warrants, and made sure the guns were not stolen etc. For all they knew these folks could have been involved in a recent crime.

Once the men were cleared they were given their guns back and sent on their way. Charges could have been laid but were not. One of the men even thanked the lead officer.

Several groups of hunters were stopped over the 2 days and not detained because their guns were properly stored. The message here is to follow the rules.

The police have a hard job and the last thing they need is to take criticism for following procedure, giving a hunter a break and using discretion.

I've been wanting to hear from an expert such as yourself.

Please tell me and please show me(I'm sure you are also "privy" to the info I'd like to get), WTF you mean by, "cased" and "in plain view"? Where is that written? Plain and simple. Where is that written?! Surely it's public isn't it? Or is it top secret? And if you told me, you'd have to...............you know....as the saying goes.

Check this out:http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...chorbo-ga:s_10

How do you get "cased" and "in plain view" out of that? Are those terms straight out of police academy? Or someone's own convenient interpretation?

Are you perhaps conveniently using "in plain view" as a misconstrued excuse for displaying a firearm? Because if you are, you're wrong. Look at this: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/display

A firearm on the front seat is out of view and not on display, hence the "transportation" of a firearm law is applicable. And "cased"? That's a term you must have pulled straight FYA!

I just want some courageous expert to SHOW ME! where TF you are getting your info. What law would you point to, to charge someone?

If you can't show me, you must be fluff. Maybe you can get one of your cohort experts to enlighten all of us. All I've learned so far is that there are two kinds of law being enforced.

[pogo]

Like us all to cower would you? Call the Sarge and it will all be just fine. Hush, hush now. Don't say anything too offensive. Maybe we can sweep this all under the rug.

Call your MP http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfP...ent&Language=E

You might be on to something though. Where can I find this "safe transportation provision" you speak of?

[pogo]

you are referring to Redcoat?

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets...ransport_e.asp

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by rugatika

WTF?? Where in the law does it say these guns have to be in a case while in transport down a highway?? All I've read says they have to be unloaded and that's it. Why weren't these guys charged for not having the guns in a case then??

Is it standard procedure to handcuff law abiding citizens? One of the guys said thanks for being cuffed and thrown in the backseat. Are you serious???

What charges could have been laid and for what?? I sure would like some clarity on what law these guys were breaking. This is getting scary. I think we better get this straightened out right away.

Jigs, are you an RCMP? How were you involved in this check stop??

I think if I was being handcuffed in these circumstances, I would ask the policeman if I was being placed under arrest. If the answer was "yes", I would ask "what for". If the answer was "no", I would tell the officer to take his/her hands off me immediately or I would arrest him/her for assault.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

I think if I was being handcuffed in these circumstances, I would ask the policeman if I was being placed under arrest. If the answer was "yes", I would ask "what for". If the answer was "no", I would tell the officer to take his/her hands off me immediately or I would arrest him/her for assault.

I'd advise you to read a bit of caselaw before running out and doing that. But hey....its your call....

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

I'd advise you to read a bit of caselaw before running out and doing that. But hey....its your call....

I believe Texas is one of the few states where you are actually allowed to resist FALSE arrest by equal force if and only if the arrest being made is for a "made up law" as seems to be the case in Whitecourt and Dawson Creek. That is to say that if the police are trying to detain you without stating a charge or stating a made up charge (like no trigger lock) you could resist with as much force as is necessary to avoid being arrested. Don't try this here.

Here in Canada I think once the cops have their hands on you they can pretty much do what they will with you for a period of 24hours without pressing charges. I am not sure what they can do if you are inside your house or your car. In your house I think they need a warrant, inside your car I am not sure. Be nice to haved a legal expert on the board who could comment and clear all this up.

It does not seem right to me that in a free country you can be detained, handcuffed, etc. without breaking any laws. Unfortunately, a simple call to the RCMP detachment only idicates that their ignorance of law is pervasive throughout the entire force, thus rendering them as a source of legal information a waste.

[Rackmastr]

Resisting arrest or threating to arrest an officer is pretty much a way to get yourself in a lot of crap.

I'm not gonna delve into it to much, but a person who wants to challenge an officer with an arrest for assault had better understand caselaw and the CR&F before making such statements.....

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Resisting arrest or threating to arrest an officer is pretty much a way to get yourself in a lot of crap.

I'm not gonna delve into it to much, but a person who wants to challenge an officer with an arrest for assault had better understand caselaw and the CR&F before making such statements.....

I thought my post might stimulate some interesting discussion. Are you a lawyer, Rackmastr? If so, thanks for the advice.

[Rackmastr]

270WIN,
Nope not a lawyer, but I do consider myself quite well versed in legislation, statutes, and caselaw regarindg arrest procedures, protections, etc, etc....
Anyways yep...some interesting conversation......

[pogo]

http://www.fritze.com/

Toll free:1-877-794-4867

Also a good, albeit dated, read: http://www.fritze.com/raf/CoolsArticle95.asp


Here would be an interesting guy to talk to for anyone so inclined. Especially before anyone starts resisting arrest et al. Last week there was a Supreme Court ruling that makes law enforcement agencies subject to law suits for wrongful investigations. I would think he'll be up to speed on whether the ruling will apply to mistakes made enforcing firearms laws and the possible ramifications of the ruling.

In our society we elect people from amongst ourselves to make the laws that create order, peace, and hopefully, justice. Then we employ those to whom we entrust the enforcement of our laws. It must be remembered that they are there because we are here. It is not the other way around.

Respectfully,

Happy Thanksgiving. Happy hunting!

[270WIN]

Sounds like you know what you're talking about, Rackmastr. Thanks again for your comments.

[Rackmastr]

270WIN,
I'll gladly post up some good info here once I wrangle it off the computer.....easy to find most of it in the Criminal Code and Charter, but a touch harder to find the exact stuff online regarding caselaw. Either way....good conversations....

[altaberg]

I have a bit mixed feelings about this topic and this discussion.

On the one hand it is disturbing if RCMP doesn't know the law of the land or alternatively goes by their own law ( the latter would probably be worse).

On the other hand I can understand their concerns.
Most mounties in rural areas patrol by themselves and back up can be a long time away. The tragedy in Hay River is a case in point.
It should also be remembered that the last 6 mounties killed, before Hay River, were shot with non-restricted long guns ( Mayerthorpe and Saskatchewan).
I think they have a right to be careful and even paranoid if they see any gun in a vehicle. According to recent federal statistics the rural areas of Western Canada do not have less crime than the much bad-mouthed big cities, the opposite actually.

I personnally transport my guns the same way I store them at home.
With a trigger lock AND in a case, only when I'm actually out on logging roads or so hunting would I have them unlocked and unloaded in the car.

I don't see a point making the lifes of law enforcement more difficult; they haev enough crap to put up with on a daily basis.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by altaberg

I have a bit mixed feelings about this topic and this discussion.

On the one hand it is disturbing if RCMP doesn't know the law of the land or alternatively goes by their own law ( the latter would probably be worse).

On the other hand I can understand their concerns.
Most mounties in rural areas patrol by themselves and back up can be a long time away. The tragedy in Hay River is a case in point.
It should also be remembered that the last 6 mounties killed, before Hay River, were shot with non-restricted long guns ( Mayerthorpe and Saskatchewan).
I think they have a right to be careful and even paranoid if they see any gun in a vehicle. According to recent federal statistics the rural areas of Western Canada do not have less crime than the much bad-mouthed big cities, the opposite actually.

I personnally transport my guns the same way I store them at home.
With a trigger lock AND in a case, only when I'm actually out on logging roads or so hunting would I have them unlocked and unloaded in the car.

I don't see a point making the lifes of law enforcement more difficult; they haev enough crap to put up with on a daily basis.

Mayerthorpe was with a Prohibated Weapon!!!

And in both the Saskatchewan and Mayerthorpe killings the individuals were neither licenced or legally allowed to posses the firearms they had. Had the Justice system actually done something with these individuals neither tragidy would have happened, but then again our feel good slap on the wrist with a wet noddle justice system would prefer to penalize the law abiding citizens not the guilty ones.
Too bad the RC's are paranoid, it still does'nt give them the right or the preconceived intention to enforce the laws the way they see them.
The jist of this whole thing is it is in black and white, the transportation requirements, and after Dawson Creek you'd have thought K Division at least would have sent a memo or a directive reinforcing what the law actually says and means, but obviously that makes way too much sense.
I guess it's gonna take a wind mill tilter to get totally PO'd and chase the whole issue right up to the Brass at RC HQ then when the law suites happen maybe someone will brighten up.

[pogo]

"I don't see a point making the lifes of law enforcement more difficult; they haev enough crap to put up with on a daily basis."

I agree with some of what you said, altaberg. I don't think anyone is out to make lives difficult.

Hypothetical situation: You get busy, excited, whatever and simply don't take your routine precautions transporting your firearm. You have just exited one of those roads on which you feel it is ok to have your rifle unloaded next to you. Suddenly...uh oh! Check stop! Nice as you are, you are handcuffed and taken away. You are having a very comfortable ride in the back of one of those spiffy new cruisers and enjoying the scenery. You are confident that you know where you stand and that it will all be resolved shortly. The cruiser pulls up to a traffic light en route. Another vehicle pulls up along side you and staring across at you is your neighbour, boss, client, patient, kid, wife, mother, pastor, you name it. How would you feel? What happens to your good reputation and your right to it? What is more important? Your rights, or those of someone else's? Weighty issues indeed.

People reap what they sow. Until there is uniformity in applying the law as it is supposed to be, expect people to push back. If a change in law is needed, push for it. Often, we have to choose the lesser of the evils. I feel that the lesser evil is to get everybody rowing in the same direction with the law as it reads now.

[Bushrat]

I notice the RCMP seem to have no problem handcuffing people in public on a whim. They seem to have no idea or care what kind of rumour storm about that handcuffed subject gets started in a small town like Dawson Creek or Whitecourt. That retired principal no doubt now gets looks, whispers, people nod to each other as he walks by, there will be rumours circulating in his church, among associates and the general population that he got busted for anything from drugs to child molestation as no doubt that the many people who saw him in handcuffs will be making wild speculations. I believe the RCMP must be held accountable for their actions and should make public apologies.

[rugatika]

by not committing any crimes. All I ask and expect in return is to be treated with respect and NOT to be handcuffed and thrown in the backseat of a cruiser for OBEYING the law. If this is an inconvenience for the RCMP then maybe they should try and get the law changed to something they like rather than just IMAGINATING up their own laws.

Maybe they should make it illegal to transport firearms out of your house. That would make their jobs easier no??

Maybe we should all put our rifles in the back window of our trucks and have a yearly firearms owners parade through the town of Whitecourt??

[Dead Moose]

I don't like repeat offenders , I like DEAD OFFENDERS. RCMP should run their vehicle plates quickly on their computer to give them a bit of a possible heads up and then approach cautiously.

[sirmike68]

I have had dealings with many people that are in positions of "authority" and I find most act the same way when they are questioned on thier tactics or reasons for doing what they are doing. Whether they are police officers, border guards, military people....my opinion is that they are of the idea that we are all just "civies" as my military cousin calls me and that we must answer to them unquestionably as they follow orders unqestionably from their superiors even if they don't have a clue. All that needs to be done is have the CO of the police department explain the correct interpretation of the law to his underlings and they will enforce it because that is what they have been told. No questions asked!!!

[209x50]

THIS is what happens when you have all these assine, meaninless jump-through-the-hoops-laws that are written just to make law abiding citizens lives more difficult. Eventually there is so much bs on the books the police don't have a clue what the heck is going on.
Now rather than having all this manpower wasted out harrassing hunters why don't they do something worthwhile like catch drug dealers or the idiots that do 120 plus on the highways.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ruffgrouse

Most of you can't even spell let alone fight a lawful fight under the Firearms Act !

What was there attitude with the cops on location like?
!

Ruffgouse. It's one thing to express your opinion, but if you are going to take petty shots about spelling, please at least learn the language yourself.

There - as in "I missed that grouse over there with all three shots"
Their - as in "their IQ is much higher than mine"
They're - as in "they're smarter than me"

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

270WIN,
I'll gladly post up some good info here once I wrangle it off the computer.....easy to find most of it in the Criminal Code and Charter, but a touch harder to find the exact stuff online regarding caselaw. Either way....good conversations....

Rackmastr
I think there are lots of members on this board who would appreciate and benefit from this sort of information, myself included. (Contrary to Ruffgrouse's earlier remark there actually are plenty of us who can spell and, believe it or not Ruffgrouse, read too.) So, Rackmastr, if you're willing to put the time and effort into providing it, I will look forward to seeing it.

Thanks

.

[Timberj]

I told myself three pages ago that I wouldn't get dragged into this, but find myself in a position to add a line or two, if for no other reason than to help clarify things from a members perspective. There have been some good, thought provoking comments in this thread, and some real ******* ones. I will simply say this, that a member of a police force can detain you as part of an investigation he is involved in. You will have all the rights supplied under the Charter, but you may not be actually charged with anything at the end of the investigation. You do not need to be charged with an offence to be removed/handcuffed from a vehicle, assuming you have been administered your rights under the Charter. The Charter is your protection, if your rights have been violated, crown will not proceed with the matter. If a member acts in good faith..ie, they believe what they are doing is just/correct, they can not be held criminally responsible (of course there are exceptions, but use common sense here please). I am not intricately familiar with the details of this particular incident, and would say based on most of the comments here, that most aren't. The police will not comment on a matter before the courts...or currently under review so please take this into account as you read through this entire thread. I fully agree that there are members of police forces, that should not be there. My years with internal affairs were the most interesting, but also the most disheartening of my service with the Force. Plain and simple,,, we are human. If you have been mistreated, report it to the agency responsible. Enough bashing now folks. The timing of this thread is poor.....

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by Timberj

I told myself three pages ago that I wouldn't get dragged into this, but find myself in a position to add a line or two, if for no other reason than to help clarify things from a members perspective. There have been some good, thought provoking comments in this thread, and some real ******* ones. I will simply say this, that a member of a police force can detain you as part of an investigation he is involved in. You will have all the rights supplied under the Charter, but you may not be actually charged with anything at the end of the investigation. You do not need to be charged with an offence to be removed/handcuffed from a vehicle, assuming you have been administered your rights under the Charter. The Charter is your protection, if your rights have been violated, crown will not proceed with the matter. If a member acts in good faith..ie, they believe what they are doing is just/correct, they can not be held criminally responsible (of course there are exceptions, but use common sense here please). I am not intricately familiar with the details of this particular incident, and would say based on most of the comments here, that most aren't. The police will not comment on a matter before the courts...or currently under review so please take this into account as you read through this entire thread. I fully agree that there are members of police forces, that should not be there. My years with internal affairs were the most interesting, but also the most disheartening of my service with the Force. Plain and simple,,, we are human. If you have been mistreated, report it to the agency responsible. Enough bashing now folks. The timing of this thread is poor.....

Excellent post Tim and that about sums it up......completely and to the point.....