RCMP Check Stops Near Whitecourt

[Wulfespirit]

While your response is interesting, TimberJ, it doesn't answer the key issue behind this thread. Here's a very direct question for you.

Do you believe it is acceptable that members of the RCMP are, during the course of a checkstop, handcuffing and detaining hunters simply for owning and lawfully transporting non-restricted firearms?

I don't want to hear that 'you don't know the circumstances'. Assuming what I wrote is correct and there are no additional circumstances that would warrant such treatment to these individuals, do you believe it is acceptable?

I'd really appreciate an answer.

For whatever its worth, my 2 cents is that its flagrant abuse of power by the officers and greatly reduces my respect for those officers and the organization they represent. While its understandable that recent and semi-recent deaths of RCMP officers would certainly make any human being feel a little more vulnerable, it does NOT justify these officers treating those they are supposed to be protecting as criminals until proven innocent simply on the basis that they own a firearm.

[Ruffgrouse]

I did not post to ruffle any feathers (Grouse ......get it !!!) but like all of you, I had something to say. My whole point was that if you are going to make phone calls and write letters, then it would be of the benefit of everyone that the facts of the matter come to light. If you were not the one stopped or the one placing the handcuffs on the person, it is kind of hard to take a stance. There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth !
This is a very touchy subject and like most things in life there are grey areas. Even through these are the Criminal Code of Canada laws that we are dealing with, each officer has his/her own decisions to make once an investigation is started. If all the indices are met then a charge may be laid in the matter. It sounds like these people were not charged but held during an investigation.
The Criminal Code of Canada states:
Section 86(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.
Section 117(h) of the Firearms Act more or less states that the Governor in Council may make regulations regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sale of firearms and restricted weapons and defining the expression “mail-order sale” for the purposes of this Act.

The Canadian Firearm Act states:
TRANSPORTATION OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS
10. (1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) except in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, it is unloaded; and
(b) in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, its firing cap or flint is removed.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), an individual may transport a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle only if
(a) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked; and
(b) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is not visible from outside the vehicle and the vehicle, or the part that contains the non-restricted firearm, is securely locked.
(3) If, in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting, an individual is transporting a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, and the vehicle or the part of it that contains the non-restricted firearm cannot be securely locked, the individual shall ensure that the non-restricted firearm
(a) is not visible; and
(b) is rendered inoperable by a secure locking device, unless the individual reasonably requires the non-restricted firearm for the control of predators.

In a nut shell, the ONLY law that there is for transporting a firearm in an occupied vehicle is that it is unloaded. There is no mention in the Criminal Code or the Firearm Act stating that a non-restricted firearm is required to be in a case or having a trigger lock.
Let me explain what I mean by Grey area. Today you might get a speeding ticket for 10 over the limit but tomorrow you might get a warning for doing 20 over. Why it works that way is just life I guess. Each member that deals with a situation at hand has to make up his / her mind at that time on how they are going to deal with it. When I said "What were the attitudes of the persons on location like", let me explain. When the member approaches the vehicle and is met with a smile and a hello how are you, which is a positive start to the first contact. If that same person tells you to go to hell and **** off as the vehicle is approached, what kind of response do you think you will get? Should this matter for the infraction that has occurred? No, but you get more bee's with honey as they say ! We are human !
You might go through Red Water, Leduc, Redcliff or Canmore and not have a problem but go through Peace River, Cold Lake, Red Earth or Whitecourt that one time and you might have an encounter were you have to explain your self. You pick on the RCMP but don't you think that Calgary and Edmonton are hiring from the same people pools? I would think that the big cities are worse. At least the small town cop is seeing a hunter at the local gas station or on a gravel road. Not too many gravel roads in Edmonton or Calgary!! I grew up in Alberta and know the rules and the laws. When the Mounties or City Services hire a city kid from Toronto, Ottawa or Vancouver that has never seen a dead deer or a gravel road then we have problems.
Why do we ask for these peoples jobs ? Why not say, let’s run a news paper article or email stating what needs to be looked at and then educate the people. Loosing your job is not the answer. A Provincial Force is not the answer. Working together is the only answer. I said that in my last post. If you know more that the guy sitting beside you, then educate him. Don't kick him in the ass and tell him he is going to have public complaints against him or that he has lost his job ! Please let’s have some compassion. Being a cop is just like every other job. You know more than some people at your work and some know more than you! They all have to start some place and each and every day they add more items to the tool box to bring out next time that experience is needed.
Just like the Kids that got caught posting poaching pictures on Facebbook, hopefully the people involved in this matter learn from what has happened and we can all move on.
It's a thankless job and every time we loose a member of any force we all learn a little and sit back and look at what is really important. Do the best job you can do and make sure you are going home to your family at the end of your shift is what matters?
I pray that we can cut these folks some more slack than we have been !

[Timberj]

Do I think it acceptable for members to handcuff people during the course of an investigation? Yes ... I do. Regardless of the context of the investigation, it is standard to follow protocal that ensures member safety. Your question is whether I would think it appropriate for members to handcuff/detain someone for simply owning and lawfully transporting non-restrictive weapons...No, I don't think that is appropriate, based on my interpretation of the statutes. I don't see where there has been a breach of the law in the circumstances as related during this thread. This is a seperate issue. Hopefully that does answer your point.

[Wulfespirit]

Originally Posted by Timberj

Do I think it acceptable for members to handcuff people during the course of an investigation? Yes ... I do. Regardless of the context of the investigation, it is standard to follow protocal that ensures member safety. Your question is whether I would think it appropriate for members to handcuff/detain someone for simply owning and lawfully transporting non-restrictive weapons...No, I don't think that is appropriate, based on my interpretation of the statutes. I don't see where there has been a breach of the law in the circumstances as related during this thread. This is a seperate issue. Hopefully that does answer your point.

Thanks, Timber. I appreciate the response.

Unless I've missed something, I don't think this is a separate issue. Now I wasn't there - but by the sounds of things, the officers manning these checkstops were doing just that - handcuffing and detaining someone simply for having an unloaded non-restricted firearm in their vehicle (that wasn't cased or trigger locked). It seems we agree that if this was occurring, it was wrong and potentially damaging to law abiding citizens, their families, and the RCMP name. I truly hope that if this did happen to people that they take whatever legal actions that are within their power to ensure that the appropriate members of the RCMP are held accountable for these actions. Admission of wrongdoing, education of membership, an apology, and compensation for those affected would be a good start.

Now, indeed, if there were circumstances that haven't been stated here (aggresive behaviour, influence of drugs/alcohol, etc), I have no problems with the actions and, in fact, endorse them. But after hearing about the gent in Dawson Creek's experience (and even having it essentially verified by the RCMP), I would not be surprised to learn that none of these circumstances were present.

[wctbowtech]

What it all comes down to is why were these guys handcuffed and place in the police cruiser for not having a trigger lock on their non-restricted unload firearms?

[RandyBoBandy]

An RCMP Sgt from Bonneville, was on CHED noon news and was talking about hunting safety ...he reiterated that TRIGGER LOCKS must be used when transporting a firearm.

[AbAngler]

I would be sooo ****ed off if that happened to me!

I do carry a copy of the pamphlet in my truck, but I wonder what an RCMP officer would say to it if I pulled it out? I suspect it wouldn't make a bit of difference. If anything, I bet it would make the officer mad and I'd be in even more trouble.

Can't win.....

[John Spartan]

I think the good sargeant is mistaken. Nowhere in the regulations for transporting non-restricted firearms is this a legal requirement and that comes straight from the CFC website which, ironically, is run by the RCMP.

Originally Posted by MrLeahy

An RCMP Sgt from Bonneville, was on CHED noon news and was talking about hunting safety ...he reiterated that TRIGGER LOCKS must be used when transporting a firearm.

[RandyBoBandy]

Well I'm really confused!! So I'm going to trigger lock my rifle in its case regardless! I don't want to get into a pi$$ing match with the police. I guess I'll be taking my chances when I don't have the trigger lock cruisin' to the hunting spots from camp ...It's quite obvious that you are GUILTY until proven innocent...I've printed the CFC regs for our hunting group..Law enforcement can pretty much haul your ***** over and do what they want with you, until they realize they are wrong! I can't believe these guys can give out misinformation and nobody challenges them! I'll tell ya...Me and Randy would never try this stuff at Sunnyvale! We usually give Bubbles and Ricky the benefit of the doubt...LOL

[ditchpickle]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you’re a cop. (then you charge everyone and let the courts sort it out)

[rugatika]

when I'm walking to my favourite hunting spot, from downtown Edmonton to Cynthia, AND i STOP at Macs to get a squishee I need to have a trigger lock on both my shotguns, my 22 and my rifle??

If I accidentally forget that stealing cars is illegal, and happen to take one, will I just get a memo from the RCMP advising me that this was illegal and in the future should be more careful to follow the law. If it happens again will they just give me a memo again? How many times am I allowed to screw up my understanding of car theft laws until I actually get in trouble??

One other question? Is there a double standard in how the RCMP are allowed to learn laws and how I am forced to know the law??

Just curious.

Seems like we are heading down a slippery slope here folks.

PS: I have yet to hear back from Stockwell Day, or my MP regarding these matters.

[rugatika]

Seems to me that without repercussions the RCMP are just going to keep walking all over us. Therefore, it is time they be held responsible for their actions. There should be criminal and civil liabilities they should face when they start blatantly disregarding the law and arresting people for laws that don't exist.

If I get cuffed and detained for obeying the law I should damn well be entitled to civil damages.

Sorry for ranting, but everytime I here about Canadians losing their civil rights that previous Canadians fought and died for I feel sick to my stomach. This country is moving in the wrong direction. We should not have to live in fear of the police.

[Ishpah]

It appears that in some instances, the RCMP are overstepping their authority and making rules to situations as they go along. Essentially, it's bullying and as long as we're ignorant of the law and our rights, they will continue to do as they please. Afterall, who are they accountable to when they can investigate themselves? I truly believe that the RCMP should be superceded by a national bureau similar to the FBI or Scotland Yard. The RCMP can use entrapment bordering on law breaking and even the aforementioned forces do not have that right.
We appear to be tottering down the path to becoming a police state.

[BUD]

Could it be that this particular Female cop also belongs to PETA and has a built in hate for hunters , mmmm , just a thought.

[BUD]

Originally Posted by wctbowtech

Several people I know got stopped over the course of the last couple of days. Both had unloaded non-restricted firearms in their vehiles. Both where handcuffed and placed in a police crusier for not having a trigger lock on thier firearms. Where do the RCMP get there information in regards to transportation of firearms? I wasn't 100% sure you didn't need to have a trigger guard on your gun so I called the Chief Firearms Officer and he confirmed that you do not need a trigger lock on. I told both guys to call the Staff Sergent and place a complant, but they fear reprocussions. What do you think they should do?

Could it be that this particular Female Cop also belongs to PETA , and has a built in hate for hunters , mmm , just a thought.

[Hunterclark]

Well I'm really confused!! So I'm going to trigger lock my rifle in its case regardless! I don't want to get into a pi$$ing match with the police.

Sounds like a good Idea its not that hard i do it all the time .I see alot of POOO HOOO r.c.m.p this r.c.m.p that get over it dam some of you cry (Wheres a cop when you need one. )

Now they are out there doing there job what do they get for it booo hooo poor you .I am happy they are out there doing there "Job"not like most of you thinking they are against you infringeing on your rights

[gunslinger]

jesus clarky you say some stupid things.
load your brain before you shoot your mouth off.

the point is its not illegal to not have a trigger lock on,
noones booo hoooing simply stating some facts here unlike you, you go ahead and go buy a trigger lock im going to go and talk to my small town police officers and see what they think.

An RCMP Sgt from Bonneville, was on CHED noon news and was talking about hunting safety ...he reiterated that TRIGGER LOCKS must be used when transporting a firearm.

This statement tells me your going to get hassled every time if you dont have one you dont need to load your "BRAIN" for that (DAM IF YOU DO AND DAM IF YOU DONT ).

I use them and from what i have read i am going to save myself alot of hassle unlike some of you good luck .

[BUD]

Originally Posted by Ruffgrouse

I did not post to ruffle any feathers (Grouse ......get it !!!) but like all of you, I had something to say. My whole point was that if you are going to make phone calls and write letters, then it would be of the benefit of everyone that the facts of the matter come to light. If you were not the one stopped or the one placing the handcuffs on the person, it is kind of hard to take a stance. There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth !
This is a very touchy subject and like most things in life there are grey areas. Even through these are the Criminal Code of Canada laws that we are dealing with, each officer has his/her own decisions to make once an investigation is started. If all the indices are met then a charge may be laid in the matter. It sounds like these people were not charged but held during an investigation.
The Criminal Code of Canada states:
Section 86(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.
Section 117(h) of the Firearms Act more or less states that the Governor in Council may make regulations regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sale of firearms and restricted weapons and defining the expression “mail-order sale” for the purposes of this Act.

The Canadian Firearm Act states:
TRANSPORTATION OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS
10. (1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) except in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, it is unloaded; and
(b) in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, its firing cap or flint is removed.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), an individual may transport a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle only if
(a) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked; and
(b) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is not visible from outside the vehicle and the vehicle, or the part that contains the non-restricted firearm, is securely locked.
(3) If, in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting, an individual is transporting a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, and the vehicle or the part of it that contains the non-restricted firearm cannot be securely locked, the individual shall ensure that the non-restricted firearm
(a) is not visible; and
(b) is rendered inoperable by a secure locking device, unless the individual reasonably requires the non-restricted firearm for the control of predators.

In a nut shell, the ONLY law that there is for transporting a firearm in an occupied vehicle is that it is unloaded. There is no mention in the Criminal Code or the Firearm Act stating that a non-restricted firearm is required to be in a case or having a trigger lock.
Let me explain what I mean by Grey area. Today you might get a speeding ticket for 10 over the limit but tomorrow you might get a warning for doing 20 over. Why it works that way is just life I guess. Each member that deals with a situation at hand has to make up his / her mind at that time on how they are going to deal with it. When I said "What were the attitudes of the persons on location like", let me explain. When the member approaches the vehicle and is met with a smile and a hello how are you, which is a positive start to the first contact. If that same person tells you to go to hell and **** off as the vehicle is approached, what kind of response do you think you will get? Should this matter for the infraction that has occurred? No, but you get more bee's with honey as they say ! We are human !
You might go through Red Water, Leduc, Redcliff or Canmore and not have a problem but go through Peace River, Cold Lake, Red Earth or Whitecourt that one time and you might have an encounter were you have to explain your self. You pick on the RCMP but don't you think that Calgary and Edmonton are hiring from the same people pools? I would think that the big cities are worse. At least the small town cop is seeing a hunter at the local gas station or on a gravel road. Not too many gravel roads in Edmonton or Calgary!! I grew up in Alberta and know the rules and the laws. When the Mounties or City Services hire a city kid from Toronto, Ottawa or Vancouver that has never seen a dead deer or a gravel road then we have problems.
Why do we ask for these peoples jobs ? Why not say, let’s run a news paper article or email stating what needs to be looked at and then educate the people. Loosing your job is not the answer. A Provincial Force is not the answer. Working together is the only answer. I said that in my last post. If you know more that the guy sitting beside you, then educate him. Don't kick him in the ass and tell him he is going to have public complaints against him or that he has lost his job ! Please let’s have some compassion. Being a cop is just like every other job. You know more than some people at your work and some know more than you! They all have to start some place and each and every day they add more items to the tool box to bring out next time that experience is needed.
Just like the Kids that got caught posting poaching pictures on Facebbook, hopefully the people involved in this matter learn from what has happened and we can all move on.
It's a thankless job and every time we loose a member of any force we all learn a little and sit back and look at what is really important. Do the best job you can do and make sure you are going home to your family at the end of your shift is what matters?
I pray that we can cut these folks some more slack than we have been !

Thats right , the B and c part and the rest of the paragragh all refer to an UNATENDED vehicle , all you need to do when your in your vehicle is have it unloaded , and when in the limits of a town or city , in a case or out of site , the case is not even mentioned , but its wise to do it anyway.

[JohninAB]

Okay is this ever confusing but to me it says when going between hunting sites the gun only has to be unloaded. But what does it say if you are leaving from home and travelling to your hunting site and get stopped before you get there? Do the rules of safe storage at home apply? ie trigger locked?

[AbAngler]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Okay is this ever confusing but to me it says when going between hunting sites the gun only has to be unloaded. But what does it say if you are leaving from home and travelling to your hunting site and get stopped before you get there? Do the rules of safe storage at home apply? ie trigger locked?

No. The rules of safe storage don't apply when transporting (no trigger locks). Transporting and storage are supposed to be two separate things.....

[bowchaser]

you also have to have proof of reg. on you as well if asked, or the firearm can be confiscated. When you produce proof, you get it back in 14 days.

[pogo]

Hey Bud,

Where does it say we must carry firearms papers on our person? I must have missed that part in my training. Just lookin' for a good steer...

Cheers

[bowchaser]

it's stated in the criminal code. I asked the specific question to the CFC. If you lend the rifle to someone to use, they must also have the registration papers.

[AbAngler]

Originally Posted by bowchaser

it's stated in the criminal code. I asked the specific question to the CFC. If you lend the rifle to someone to use, they must also have the registration papers.

With the amnesty though, chances of being checked for reg papers are pretty slim.

[bowchaser]

maybe, but seems like a lot of out of line requests are being made by rcmp. They stated a peace officer can request the registration, but is a F & W officer considered a peace officer. Can they request your reg?

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by bowchaser

maybe, but seems like a lot of out of line requests are being made by rcmp. They stated a peace officer can request the registration, but is a F & W officer considered a peace officer. Can they request your reg?

The answer to both questions is "yes". I think, by
policy, they don't ask for registration certificates as long as there is no evidence of some other violation. However they sure can. F&W oficers are provincial employees and when the federal registration of rifles and shotguns came in, Alberta very definitely stated that the province would not enforce those registration laws. As far as I know that hasn't changed.

[JohninAB]

Forest officers and RCMP officers are also classified as Fish and Wildlife officers as well under the Wildife Act too. And yes forest officers are peace officers as well.

On another forum I asked a friend of mine who is a Staff Sergeant with the RCMP in Ottawa and he ran this topic by the lawyers there. Here is what I got back:

I just finished a meeting with our legal beagles on this act and it's interpretation. Off the record the Act lacks clairity at best.

To understand the act one must firstly understand the definitions

"secure locking device" means a device

(a) that can only be opened or released by the use of an electronic, magnetic or mechanical key or by setting the device in accordance with an alphabetical or numerical combination; and



(b) that, when applied to a firearm, prevents the firearm from being discharged. ( dispositif de verrouillage sécuritaire )


Unattended and Kodic mentioned it the following is the definition of it :

"unattended" , in respect of a vehicle, means that the vehicle is not under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who is 18 years of age or older or to whom a licence has been issued under the Act. ( non surveillé ) In other words if you stopp to buy more beer the vehicle is considered unattended and the following MUST apply
(2) Subject to subsection (3), an individual may transport a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle only if


(a) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked; and



(b) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is not visible from outside the vehicle and the vehicle, or the part that contains the non-restricted firearm, is securely locked.



(3) If, in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting, an individual is transporting a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, and the vehicle or the part of it that contains the non-restricted firearm cannot be securely locked, the individual shall ensure that the non-restricted firearm


(a) is not visible; and



(b) is rendered inoperable by a secure locking device, unless the individual reasonably requires the non-restricted firearm for the control of predators.




Now here comes the clause that may have precipitated the seizures.

DISPLAY OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS


8. An individual may display a non-restricted firearm only if it


(a) is unloaded;



(b) is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device or is in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and



(c) is not displayed with and is not readily accessible to ammunition that can be discharged from it.

As you can see by the Display Clause , it can be interpreted as requiring the weapon to have secure locking device. The law in my opinion is unlclear as it fails to clearly address the issue of transporation as it pertains to hunters travelling the roadways vis a vis storage at a private dwelling in this part of the regulations. Unfortunately it's a lot easier to amend Provincial/Territorial Acts than a Federal one. Techinically speaking would I have the authority to seize the weapon in this instance if it did not have a secure locking device ,the answer would be yes. The court would then have to rule on the interpretation of this clause and if the seizure was lawful.

[AbAngler]

He's full of it. This is taken directly from the CFC/RCMP website:

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

Transporting Firearms Safely
Non-restricted firearms

Unload your firearms

Muzzleloaders can be kept loaded when being transported between hunting sites but the firing cap or flint must be removed.

Thats it for non-restricted. Seems straight forward to me.
Send that to him.

Edit to add: Not only is he full of it, he didn't even answer your question. He says nothing about transport. He addresses display and seems to think it's same thing. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between the two....

[JohninAB]

He is a Staff Sergeant from the RCMP working in Ottawa and had the lawyers there look at it and reported back what they told him. So before you run around with your comments maybe you should look at the credentials of the people involved in my post and your own credentials. I posted this to try and help not get a discussion going on their credentials.

Also ABangler, read the reg, it says between hunting sites the firearm just has to be unloaded, so what happens when you are heading home down the hiway after legal shooting times and you hit a check stop. Are you going between hunting sites or going home? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out either. Say you are going between hunting sites then bang you are nailed for hunting after dark, say you are going home and bang, you are no longer going between hunting sites and gun should be locked. As he states the lawyers say it is very unclear in how the Act is worded so in the above case, the officer can legally interpret it as being displayed (and displayed does not mean in a window either) it means it is in plain view and hence should have a trigger lock on it. Their lawyers told them they would be within their legal rights to seize the firearm and let the courts decide. You can take your own interpretation of it but I have his and will abide by it. Now if I am going from hunting spot A to hunting Spot B I will not worry about having it trigger locked but when coming home after the hunt, I will take the extra second and lock it just to be safe.