RCMP Check Stops Near Whitecourt

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 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.

I interpret between hunting sites as transporting- UNLOADED ONLY!!

This has been beaten to death. There is nothing to interpret with this, you only have to have your gun unloaded while transporting. If in fact the RCMP did what is claimed they were wrong!

[hunt_and_fish]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

I interpret between hunting sites as transporting- UNLOADED ONLY!!

There is nothing to interpret with this...

Don't quite follow you there. You explain how you interpret it and then you say there is nothing to interpret.

I agree with John's interpretation. The act isn't specific enough. It doesn't mention anything about transporting from hunting site to home. It says "between hunting sites" and since home isn't a hunting site, if that is where you are headed then you aren't really between hunting sites.

I typically put the trigger lock on at the end of the day anyway, but I will make sure that I always do it now.

[rugatika]

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.

An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A MUZZLE LOADING FIREARM THAT IS BEING TRANSPORTED BETWEEN HUNTING SITES, it is unloaded and ...

The part about between hunting sites applies only to muzzleloaders in which case the cap or flint need be removed. Excluding the reference to muzzleloaders the act as it pertains to non-restricted firearms would read "An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if it is unloaded and..."

Seems pretty clear to me. Not sure where the RCMP are having problems. The display statute applies to displaying firearms not to transporting them.

[AbAngler]

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.

Don't think I said anything about anyones credentials. Take a deep breath, calm down.

Also ABangler, read the reg, it says between hunting sites the firearm just has to be unloaded,

Oh I read the regs, and posted them for you. Like Rugatika said, between hunting sites applies to muzzle loaders.

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?

Your going home. Transporting, which is a different word then displaying.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out either

Apparently it does. Have a good weekend.

[rugatika]

Well, there's a reason we will never know for sure how the courts will rule whether a visible rifle is considered on "Display" while you are transporting it. THe police will NEVER charge anyone with displaying a firearm. Why won't they? Because they will get laughed out of court.

This is clearly an instance of police playing on the fears of people having to go to court (which is no small thing) and using an irrelevant law to harass law abiding citizens. If this is really an issue then why haven't the RCMP charged anyone with an infraction of the display statute while transporting their non-restricted firearm?? Must be because they are such nice fellows. They only want to handcuff, detain, and embarass a law abiding citizen, but they don't want to charge him with anything.

You would have to luck (as in bad luck) into a pretty far left wing judge to be found guilty of violating a display statute while transporting a firearm. The problem is that defending yourself can get pretty expensive, which is why I think cases like this there should be redress for citizens to sue for civil and punitive damages against the RCMP (or whatever organization) and the specific officer who layed the charges in cases where they were obviously and blatanly mis-interpreting the "intent" of the laws. (Which would be the case here)

[Pheasantnut]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Well, there's a reason we will never know for sure how the courts will rule whether a visible rifle is considered on "Display" while you are transporting it. THe police will NEVER charge anyone with displaying a firearm. Why won't they? Because they will get laughed out of court.

This is clearly an instance of police playing on the fears of people having to go to court (which is no small thing) and using an irrelevant law to harass law abiding citizens. If this is really an issue then why haven't the RCMP charged anyone with an infraction of the display statute while transporting their non-restricted firearm?? Must be because they are such nice fellows. They only want to handcuff, detain, and embarass a law abiding citizen, but they don't want to charge him with anything.

You would have to luck (as in bad luck) into a pretty far left wing judge to be found guilty of violating a display statute while transporting a firearm. The problem is that defending yourself can get pretty expensive, which is why I think cases like this there should be redress for citizens to sue for civil and punitive damages against the RCMP (or whatever organization) and the specific officer who layed the charges in cases where they were obviously and blatanly mis-interpreting the "intent" of the laws. (Which would be the case here)

Rugatika you kill me....sounds like you haven't been in a courtroom ....they're all "far left wing judges" that's why things are such a mess these days........

[rugatika]

You make a good point pheasant. Perhaps one should be a little more wary of our justice system. You're safe if you kill someone or steal a car, but god forbid you don't trigger lock your gun. Just ask Bruce Montague, they bring down the thunder and rain on you.

[ElDiablo]

I had the good fortune of being pulled over by a F&W Officer this afternoon in our favourite WMU. His first question (after "Good Afternoon") was "Is there a loaded firearm in the vehicle?" We all chimed in "No" about the same time, and I added "would you like to look at them?". The officer smiled, and declined, asked for our tags, took a peek in the back of the truck, and then spent about 20 minutes BSing with us. I brought up this thread (ended up writing down the URL for him to check it out himself). His feelings were that the majority of RCMP members are fair and level headed people, but as with any group of people, "theres gonna be boneheads in every crowd". He was aware of the situations in Dawson Creek and Whitecourt and felt that its rapidly (poorly) educated members that are little too 'gung ho' that end up causing massive conflicts like these. He also added that he works closely with the RCMP in our area at checkstops etc. and that this particular detachment is looking for 2 specific things in a hunter-targeted checkstop. 1 is that all the firearms are UNLOADED and 2 is that the driver is SOBRE. They also check vehicle registration, insurance, drivers license etc. but that the first two are the main points of the operation. He has never seen or heard of the local RCMP asking for reg. papers, PALs, trigger locks, cases or anything of the like....just empty guns, and apparantly we would be surprised at how many idiots they catch at these things with loaded firearms on board.

While I am a HUGE advocate of the police not infringing on our rights as law abiding citizens, I will always be the first to cooperate with them if they stop me at a check stop. I always make a point of smiling and being friendly (as I would in an encounter with anybody else in the world), and not looking like I've got anything to hide. I respect a man who will voluntarily stop a vehicle that probably has guns in it, and I will be more than happy to show him ( or let him show himself) that mine is empty. If I were on the other side of the window, I'd rather know for myself that the gun is unloaded. And at the end of the day, if I havn't done anything wrong, and don't have anything illiegal in the truck, he can look at anything he wants, I've got nothing to hide. If all intentions are honest and true, they are looking to get rid of the idiots who give the rest of us a bad name, I'll do whatever I can to help.

[ElDiablo]

and just to clarify a touch (before I get nailed here) I'm not a big fan of our justice system either, for the most part, its a ridiculous system we live in. As long as the cops are doing what I feel is fair and just, I'll help. Once they step outside the boundaries of what I feel is right, I'll fight the system every step of the way. We're supposed to live in a democracy, not a police state.