Passenger finds RCMP gun BC ferry

[my72jeep]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/passenger-finds-rcmp-gun-bc-ferry-183828029.html

Police are investigating after a loaded RCMP pistol was found on a BC Ferry earlier in March

 

[Fishbone Jones]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/passenger-finds-rcmp-gun-bc-ferry-183828029.html

Police are investigating after a loaded RCMP pistol was found on a BC Ferry earlier in March

If that was a regular RPAL holder, he'd have his house ransacked, without warrant, all his firearms and ammo seized and charged with unsafe storage and weapon dangerous, at the minimum.

Conviction (guaranteed) would result in DNA submission (convicted dangerous), loss of his collection (if he has one) no compensation for seizure of personal property, and a ten year weapon prohibition after serving his three year mandatory sentence under the Criminal Code.

Typically, cops that lose their guns get a department discipline report, retraining order, and maybe a suspension. IIRC, most LEO suspensions come with pay as part of their collective bargaining.

Canadian news is rife with LEO's losing their guns, but because they don't require a RPAL to carry, as part of their employment, they never feel the weight of the law as it's applied to a normal citizen.

LEO's have their job, they also don't make the rules. RPAL holders can only wish that they could be treated like other citizens, whether they be LEOs or the guy next door (without guns).

Heck we'd like to have the same rights as common criminals, but we don't.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We'll probably move this to the Gun Control thread shortly.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[ballz]

Of course, RG, if you're hoping he gets jail time or anything, then it must because you are "anti-LEO"

It's nothing personal, or "anti-LEO," but he better get charged... because that's what would happen to me. There is still some hope, as something similar happened in Newfoundland with an RNC officer and he was charged (carelessly using a firearm and failure to ensure a firearm is properly stored).
http://www.thetelegram.com/Justice/2010-01-12/article-1455560/Case-set-over-for-RNC-officer-facing-charges-in-connection-with-stolen-gun/1

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There is talk of him being charged with unsafe storage but it won't carry the same consequences as it would for a normal RPAL holder.

I'm also as far from anti LEO as you can get

- Posted with SIR -

 

[J.J]

If that was a regular RPAL holder, he'd have his house ransacked, without warrant, all his firearms and ammo seized and charged with unsafe storage and weapon dangerous, at the minimum.

Conviction (guaranteed) would result in DNA submission (convicted dangerous), loss of his collection (if he has one) no compensation for seizure of personal property, and a ten year weapon prohibition after serving his three year mandatory sentence under the Criminal Code.

Typically, cops that lose their guns get a department discipline report, retraining order, and maybe a suspension. IIRC, most LEO suspensions come with pay as part of their collective bargaining.

Canadian news is rife with LEO's losing their guns, but because they don't require a RPAL to carry, as part of their employment, they never feel the weight of the law as it's applied to a normal citizen.

LEO's have their job, they also don't make the rules. RPAL holders can only wish that they could be treated like other citizens, whether they be LEOs or the guy next door (without guns).

Heck we'd like to have the same rights as common criminals, but we don't.

.

Recceguy that is a lot of assumptions on your part. Was the gun stolen? Was there a mechanical defect in the storage locker? Was the gun dropped by a courier? You don't know that, but as soon as a LEO is mentioned there are several childish people out that jump on the bandwagon.
A warrant would have to be approved by the courts for a search and/or seizure of firearms. IF the RCMP member mishandled his duty firearm and he owns firearms, I bet there will be a public safety warrant on his house also. For the private gun owner, their name will not make the media, they won't have the lemmings screaming for his blood and they will not lose their job. The RCMP member, if guilty, will suffer all or most of those consequences.
The majority of public safety warrants I have taken part in the collection was either held until the owner complied with some conditions or they were turned over to a licensed family member or friend.
A person who is convicted of unsafe storage will not have to submit to a DNA sample, that is for violent offences.

Maybe I am overreacting to your post as I have been told that there isn't an underlying anti-LEO sentiment out here...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Come on WR, you know we all hide behind that thin blue line. :

 

[ballz]

For the private gun owner, their name will not make the media, they won't have the lemmings screaming for his blood and they will not lose their job. The RCMP member, if guilty, will suffer all or most of those consequences.

Really? You think, in this hoplophobic nation, if someone found a loaded .40 calibre handgun in a public place that was registered to my name, that it wouldn't make the papers??? You don't think I'd lose my job after I got convicted of a criminal offence???

Maybe I am overreacting to your post as I have been told that there isn't an underlying anti-LEO sentiment out here...

Nailed it. This is the second time you've suggested that advocating that LEOs face the same kind of consequences we would have to face for negligence is "anti-LEO." I am not saying this member is guilty of negligence, just that if he is, he should face the same consequences as RG or me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.

Recceguy that is a lot of assumptions on your part. Was the gun stolen? Was there a mechanical defect in the storage locker? Was the gun dropped by a courier? You don't know that, but as soon as a LEO is mentioned there are several childish people out that jump on the bandwagon.
A warrant would have to be approved by the courts for a search and/or seizure of firearms. IF the RCMP member mishandled his duty firearm and he owns firearms, I bet there will be a public safety warrant on his house also. For the private gun owner, their name will not make the media, they won't have the lemmings screaming for his blood and they will not lose their job. The RCMP member, if guilty, will suffer all or most of those consequences.
The majority of public safety warrants I have taken part in the collection was either held until the owner complied with some conditions or they were turned over to a licensed family member or friend.
A person who is convicted of unsafe storage will not have to submit to a DNA sample, that is for violent offences.

Maybe I am overreacting to your post as I have been told that there isn't an underlying anti-LEO sentiment out here...

Actually the Officer reported it himself

 

[Fishbone Jones]

WR, Please, anti LEO, me?

Your straw man might work for others, and of course Bruce, but you know it doesn't describe me.

Please stop trying to paint me with that brush. You of all people know it's not true.

-Posted with SIR-

 

[J.J]

You know you and ballz are right,  you both are obviously being fair and equatable and not treating this situation differently....
FYI for ballz, guns are found and or seized on a regular basis and it doesn't make the media.
Carry on with the regular scheduled cruxifiction.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, I'm just going to give up also. Mention a cop and a gun and all sense goes out the window. You're immediately branded a cop hating anarchist.

Even by those that know better.

 

[ballz]

You know you and ballz are right,  you both are obviously being fair and equatable and not treating this situation differently....
FYI for ballz, guns are found and or seized on a regular basis and it doesn't make the media.
Carry on with the regular scheduled cruxifiction.

Do they get absolute discharges for it too? http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Justice/2010-03-27/article-1452937/I-made-a-mistake/1

Carry on calling us anti-LEO... I'll describe it as pro-justice. And you'll hear these anti-LEO/pro-justice sentiments until I start seeing some justice.

Justice would be either LEOs getting the same penalties as a civlian (or worse, considering the trust that the public has invested in them) or civilians getting absolute discharges for leaving loaded handguns improperly stored in public places.

 

[jollyjacktar]

As a former LEO, I believe they as professionals in the carrying and use of FA, should be held to a higher standard of conduct/accountability than J.Q. Public.  To steal the motto of the Canadian Provost Corps, "Discipline by example".  And as a side comment, the CBSA officer applicants require a RPAL in order to carry out their duties/training.  So maybe, these LEO at least will have to walk the same line as JPQ.

 

[fraserdw]

As a former LEO, I believe they as professionals in the carrying and use of FA, should be held to a higher standard of conduct/accountability than J.Q. Public.  To steal the motto of the Canadian Provost Corps, "Discipline by example".  And as a side comment, the CBSA officer applicants require a RPAL in order to carry out their duties/training.  So maybe, these LEO at least will have to walk the same line as JPQ.

Completely agree, I bet LEOs and their political managers would have a whole different opinion of gun control if they had to jump through a few more hoops to carry.  Their managers might even busy themselves things other than manipulating politicans with scenarios of scary gun owners taking over Canadian democracy!

 

[Container]

If that was a regular RPAL holder, he'd have his house ransacked, without warrant, all his firearms and ammo seized and charged with unsafe storage and weapon dangerous, at the minimum.

I have yet to ever ransack anyones house after charging them with unsafe storage. I have done so with a warrant- but in most cases I havent searched anyones house. That isnt to say it hasnt happened at some point but I've yet to see it. In fact 117.02 of the Criminal Code only authorizes such a search with a warrant unless exigent circumstances are present.

Conviction (guaranteed) would result in DNA submission (convicted dangerous), loss of his collection (if he has one) no compensation for seizure of personal property, and a ten year weapon prohibition after serving his three year mandatory sentence under the Criminal Code.

Storing a Firearm Contrary to Regulations and should we go nuts and use Careless use of a Firearm- neither are primary or secondary offences for the puposes of DNA collection. So this statement is completely not true. Furthermore there is no mandatory sentence unless the crown proceeds indictably. Which is a rarity. There would need to be contributing factors. Regular law abiding citizens who find themselves in this particular situation would not find themselves in Jail. And certainly not for three years. Also- neither of those offences carry a mandatory prohibition order (neither 10 year nor lifetime)

Typically, cops that lose their guns get a department discipline report, retraining order, and maybe a suspension. IIRC, most LEO suspensions come with pay as part of their collective bargaining.

Not true. Ontario police adjudications and even the case already posted here from the RNC demonstrate that Police Officers indeed do wind up charged. They are then subject to a second set of hearings that result in the punishments you state. Over and above this- the suspension with pay is where an allegation is made. Like the almost weekly occurence where we are accused of crimes out of spite from the public. Otherwise no one would work because we CONSTANTLY have ridiculous allegations leveled at us. Where it is pretty clear we've committed a serious offence against the public there is movement towards suspension without pay- this has been a long time coming.

The "sentences" that are handed out when the police officer is found guilty do NOT under any circumstance result in suspension with pay. Generally speaking it is handed out in "docked days" where the police officer loses anywhere from 1 to 10 days in pay as a fine- or face dismissal etc. Never has anyone been given suspension with pay with a finding of guilt.

Canadian news is rife with LEO's losing their guns, but because they don't require a RPAL to carry, as part of their employment, they never feel the weight of the law as it's applied to a normal citizen. LEO's have their job, they also don't make the rules. RPAL holders can only wish that they could be treated like other citizens, whether they be LEOs or the guy next door (without guns).

There really isnt anything to say here. Except that peace officers are quite specifically exempt from the rules in most cases when acting in accordance with their duties so....you can't be treated the same way. And I dont know anyone who treats a gun owner any different. I dont know how I would? It would be like asking to see the papers for a car from a guy who doesnt own any cars. Of course I dont bother him with that.

Of course police need to use guns differently. In undercover operations etc where the way the guns are carried an concealed quite obviously are stored contrary to requirements. This is an operational requirement.

Heck we'd like to have the same rights as common criminals, but we don't.

 

[Container]

Do they get absolute discharges for it too? http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Justice/2010-03-27/article-1452937/I-made-a-mistake/1

Yes they do. Just recently a man had a rifle stolen from under his  matress from a break and enter. I gave the guy a break and made sure he secured the rest of his firearms properly. Explained why etc.

The file bounced back, the uppers and a lawyer wanted the storage charge laid. So they did.

Absolute discharge.

So yes it does happen. From my own first hand experience.

 

[Container]

And as a side comment, the CBSA officer applicants require a RPAL in order to carry out their duties/training.  So maybe, these LEO at least will have to walk the same line as JPQ.

No they wont. They are still exempt while on duty carrying out their function. Most police officers I worked with in the far north all had licenses and owned firearms- nothing would be different for us compared to our unlicensed coworkers with regards to our duty firearms because of the exemption.

Having a PAL has caused me ten minutes of paperwork every few years. It isnt a big deal.

 

[jollyjacktar]

No they wont. They are still exempt while on duty carrying out their function. Most police officers I worked with in the far north all had licenses and owned firearms- nothing would be different for us compared to our unlicensed coworkers with regards to our duty firearms because of the exemption.

Having a PAL has caused me ten minutes of paperwork every few years. It isnt a big deal.

Well there you go.  Have been away from gun ownership game for almost 20 years, and did not need to have to do the paperwork to do my work when I was current as a LEO.  The requirement of needing a RPAL seems bloody pointless then.

 

[Container]

I had the CBSA requirement for a PAL explained to me when I inquired because it seemed bizarre to me-

it was so that they were more familiar with firearms or something along those lines. It wasnt an overly good explanation- but it was something like that. They are more likely to have extended contact with firearms and their administration in some of their positions. To me its just a tick in the box.

I cant stand watching PO's clearing their own firearms let alone watching them handle and clear ones they have never seen before. Its a scary few seconds for sure. But the Safety course isnt going to fix that and neither is a PAL requirement.

Its what we get when we recruit city slickers and send them out to the boondocks to police folks who grew up with firearms. People with no firearms history have poor sense when it comes to policing firearms- especially with no real training regarding them- no matter what degree they have from Queens.

EDIT- the PAL requirement was left over from before they were armed- so they had basic understanding on how to handle firearms they deal with in their duties. Once they were armed it was just never removed- Im pretty sure that was the explanation.