Toronto police seize 400 guns

[HaRdLy]

Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms from registered owners in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns on the city's streets.
In March, officers began soliciting registered firearm owners across the city as part of what they call the Safe City Project. Many of those who had to surrender their firearms had either let their registrations lapse, or had stashed their guns improperly under beds or in closets.
The Canadian Firearms Registry stipulates guns must be stored in a secure place.
No charges were laid in the push, police said Tuesday.
Targeting people who had registered their guns is a preventative measure, said Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.
"Legal handgun owners are not dangerous individuals," Blair told reporters at a Tuesday news conference. "But we know from experience that their firearms can become extremely dangerous when they get into the hands of criminals. And so we have undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce the availability of those handguns."
Police estimate there are still 4,000 guns in Ontario that are being improperly stored.
However, a critic says, the push to target registered gun owners is not getting at the root of the problem.
"The system doesn't work. It's broken. It doesn't target the right people," Greg Farrant, a spokesman for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, told CBC News. People who are barred from owning weapons are the ones who should be registered and tracked, he said.
There are about 2.3 million registered guns in Ontario.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-police523.html

[brainplay]

How do the authorities know how the firearms were stored? Do they do spot check which allowed entry into the home?

[MkH]

That's what they are pushing in Finland at the moment: allowing the police to check gunowners homes for how weapons are stored. When normally, according to the law, for the police to search your home you have to be suspected for a serious crime.

[Mu-Meson]

Oh this ****ing pisses me off! Why do they always come after the law abiding citizens who jump through all the hoops? The percentage of firearms that are used in crime that are stolen from legal owners is miniscule.

[TheArmenian]

This is typical case of police going after the duck-hunters instead of the criminals.

[Hollis]

Oh this ****ing pisses me off! Why do they always come after the law abiding citizens who jump through all the hoops? The percentage of firearms that are used in crime that are stolen from legal owners is miniscule.

Citizens who obey the laws, register their firearms are just very easy targets for firearm confiscation. Then people wonder why people do not trust the government. Play by the rules and be the first ones punished. There are already laws on the books that add to the punishment when a criminal uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. The criminal is the one who should be punished. All this does is places good citizens against the government and ignores the real criminal.

[Geezah]

Been said before, "registration is one step closer to confiscation".............

Reason enough why Law Abiding Americans/US Citizens should not be required to register their firearms.....

[brainplay]

Patrick Swayze dying and this suddenly jump started that little scene from Red Dawn to repeat itself in my head.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

400 out 2.3 million guns in Ontario thats not a lot and if the law says secure storage thats not unreasonable.

[West Texican]

Why don't they just take the guns from criminals instead? Police job security?

[ex Strathcona]

the O.P.P. have a problem with private citizens owning guns, that's why there are fvck all gun ranges here compared to places like Alberta and the ones we do have are crap.
on the flip side, it's not difficult to simply lock the firearms up, i have no problems with my collection. and the gun Nazi's haven't knocked on my door yet

[XShipRider]

Odd, they seized the guns improperly stored instead of warning or ensuring the guns were secured.

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, Hollis and Geezah.

[TallGuy]

The cops are just upholding the law. I'm sure they're also seizing weapons used by criminals.
A large percentage of the firearms used by criminals are stolen from law abiding citizens.
So there's nothing wrong with cops checking to see if they're properly stored..

[Corrupt]

Been said before, "registration is one step closer to confiscation".............

Reason enough why Law Abiding Americans/US Citizens should not be required to register their firearms.....

Yeah god forbid that the Police/Government be allowed to know who has handgun/shotgun/other potentially lethal firearm...
I'm not saying registered users are the problem at all, but its just the same as having to register your car and it being taken away if you dont pay road tax or other such things to have the privelage. I have no problems when the police catch people using stolen cars from the reg plate or towing it away if your uninsured or dont have a liscense.
It just makes sourcing such articles easier if they're registered!

[Geezah]

Yeah god forbid that the Police/Government be allowed to know who has handgun/shotgun/other potentially lethal firearm...

Too right, why should they know?



I'm not saying registered users are the problem at all,

Yes you are, otherwise you would not see a problem in the law abiding not having to register their firearms.



but its just the same as having to register your car and it being taken away if you dont pay road tax or other such things to have the privelage.

Actually you are so off base it's not even funny.

There is no right to drive cars, but there is a RIGHT to bear arms, and that RIGHT is protected unlike driving which is a pivelage!



I have no problems when the police catch people using stolen cars from the reg plate or towing it away if your uninsured or dont have a liscense.
It just makes sourcing such articles easier if they're registered!

And comparing firearms to cars just doesn't work!

The reference above is to our BoR.

Is there anything in place that gives a RIGHT to Canadians to own firearms?

[Flounder]

No. As far as I am aware, we have no constitutional right of any sort to firearms ownership.

The regulation and restrictions on handgun ownership in Canada date back to the 1930's if I remember correctly. The registration of long guns is a much more recent development.

[West Texican]

This is a little bit off subject but should a handheld laser be considered a firearm/weapon? Many of the new green and blue solid state lasers are really getting up there in power. Some can be easily modified for even more power. There are many videos on Youtube showing how to increase the power of them. If a $200 blue or green laser can easily start a fire today what can we expect tomorrow? I know modified lasers were used in the riots in Greece earlier this year in an attempt to blind the police. A green astronomers laser pointer can do damage to your eyes easily.

[XShipRider]

I cannot locate Canadian law which addresses the right to search, seize or inspect with regard to private homes.

Link:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/F-11.6

This link seems to address storage by private individuals:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cr/SOR-98-209//?showtoc=&instrumentnumber=SOR-98-209



STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored 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) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

[brainplay]

This is a little bit off subject but should a handheld laser be considered a firearm/weapon?

Only if its in the 40watt range.. p-)

[ex Strathcona]

Only if its in the 40watt range.. p-)

thats light bulb territory.. think you want a 40 megawatt range :)

[Laconian]

I know the firearm seizure is the issue here, but under what premise is a search that can lead to criminal charges conducted? A search requires a warrant, issued upon probable cause by a detached magistrate. Is this not true in Canada?

[Corrupt]

Too right, why should they know?

Yes you are, otherwise you would not see a problem in the law abiding not having to register their firearms.

Actually you are so off base it's not even funny.

There is no right to drive cars, but there is a RIGHT to bear arms, and that RIGHT is protected unlike driving which is a pivelage!

And comparing firearms to cars just doesn't work!

The reference above is to our BoR.

Is there anything in place that gives a RIGHT to Canadians to own firearms?

I drive a car regularly and its registered and I have my liscense/insurance etc. I have no problem with the government making drivers have these things. Its the same with firearms because it allows them to regulate who has them so they're not sold to murderers, thieves, the mentally unstable etc? If you have no intention of using a weapon illegally why would you care that the police knew you had one. How would you regulate that if you werent made to register your weapon?
Remember these people who had their weapons seized were keeping them in frankly stupid places, or didnt keep their liscenses up to date.

Why is it so off base? Hell one could argue cars are more essential to your society (to get around day to day) than guns (because lets face it the redcoats arent returning anytime soon) and should be less licensed. Fact is both of them should be privelages.

Fact is they should both be restricted to people who have proved themselves able to safely and competantly use them, yes they are both enjoyable and even useful, but also they can both kill very easily and some degre of control is required.

Plus this is Canada not the US and theres no right to bear arms ingraniend into the consitution.

[Flounder]

Laconian:

There are 2 provisions for warrantless searches under our Firearms Act, otherwise known as Bill C-68.

From the website:

h tee tp://www.rkba.ca/c68_charter_violations.html


"Section 8 of the Charter (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the police. The courts have interpreted this to require the police to procure a search warrant from a judge before conducting a search, except in narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., "hot pursuit" or probable loss of evidence). The importance of the warrant requirement is heightened when the premises being searched are a home. Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant "reasonable notice." Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures -- in private homes -- without prior judicial approval, they violate section 8 of the Charter.

The search and seizure powers granted by the Firearms Act are also unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes "at any reasonable time" and to search "any place where the inspector believes...there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]" and "may open any container...examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it"; and "require any person to produce for examination or copying any records books of account or other documents." Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police "fishing expeditions" imposed by the section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure.


******

A LOT of the objections law abiding Canadian firearms owners had to Bill C-68 had to do with these search provisions.

[Geezah]

I drive a car regularly and its registered and I have my liscense/insurance etc.

OK, good for you, so do I.



I have no problem with the government making drivers have these things.

They make you do these under threat of prosecution for failure to obtain these things.



Its the same with firearms because it allows them to regulate who has them so they're not sold to murderers, thieves, the mentally unstable etc?

If you are talking Canada that is one thing as I do not know enough about their rules and regulations to pass judgement. Now in the US, the RIGHT to bear arms, is just that a RIGHT. Not a privilege, which covers car ownership.

I'm not sure where you have this idea that car ownership and firearm ownership are the same but you are really off course.

Just in case you missed it.


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The RIGHT of the people shall not be infringed. Nothing about it being a privilege.

Now as to who gets them, when you go to purchase a firearm through legal channels you fill out a Form 4473 which is then phoned into NCIS. They then do an instant background check.



If you have no intention of using a weapon illegally why would you care that the police knew you had one.

Because it's none of their business what I own!



How would you regulate that if you werent made to register your weapon?

So just how does regulating stop them falling into the hands of criminals?



Remember these people who had their weapons seized were keeping them in frankly stupid places, or didnt keep their liscenses up to date.

Stupid places?

Because they weren't locked up?

If that is Canadian law then so be it, but it should be down to the indivual as to how they store it.



Why is it so off base? Hell one could argue cars are more essential to your society (to get around day to day) than guns (because lets face it the redcoats arent returning anytime soon) and should be less licensed. Fact is both of them should be privelages.

Cars and Firearms are not the same, please stop trying to compare apples to oranges.

And fact is, they are not both privelages, one is a RIGHT, the other is a privelage.



Fact is they should both be restricted to people who have proved themselves able to safely and competantly use them, yes they are both enjoyable and even useful, but also they can both kill very easily and some degre of control is required.

Plus this is Canada not the US and theres no right to bear arms ingraniend into the consitution.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, while you sign your RIGHTS away to the Government, I will fight to maintain mine!

[Bacon]

Project Safe City saw police seize unlicensed guns within Toronto. Owners were given the option to pay to renew their license and pick them up again, or to forfeit the weapon. The 400 guns shown yesterday were forfeited. None of the owners were charged.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/police-seize-400-guns-in-safe-city-initiative/article1298101/

[Corrupt]

Theyre no the same, but the same concept apply. There are some rules as to how you can use/store them, if you dont follow them you lose any right or provelage you had, its not difficult. Why? Because failure to do so gets people killed or maimed. Plus killers who LEGALLY owned their firearms and had can be easily traced if you know how many people own say a Remington .700. Its proved useful before

Im sorry if I dont see you and your mates as a well regulated militia who therefore might need firearms to fight off dastardly redcoats who want to make you pay tax on cups of tea. It was placed there centuries ago during a revolution. In a modern functional society should you need that right? You're not exactly in Somalia or the 1800s, a nation like the USA should be able to function in the 21st century without its population chaining itself to weapons lest they be oppressed.

I guess we just differ in viewpoints. I like the idea that we know who has weapons or anything else that can kill quicky and easily and that it be locked away safely when not and that those using them have some kind of training in their safe application. I'm not in favour of outright bans on things like handguns (the UK is far too severe in this) but I do like to think people with them have been checked out and are registered to use them

[brainplay]

thats light bulb territory.. think you want a 40 megawatt range :)

Pawn Shop Clerk (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0588241/)These are brand new; we just got them in. That's a good gun. Just touch the trigger, the beam comes on and you put the red dot where you want the bullet to go. You can't miss. Anything else?
The Terminator (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000216/): Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
Pawn Shop Clerk (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0588241/): Hey, just what you see pal.

Terminator fanboy STRONG!!!11! p-)

Thanks Loo for the extra info. So many of these were collected because the licenses were revoked or expired and they had the option to renew. That sounds ok.

Still no answered my original question though. How did the cops know if a weapon was improperly stored? Do they do spot checks? Can they enter your house at any time? XShipRider, if you know the answer I'll take your word for it assuming you're not guessing. No need to post a link if you know it.

[Corrupt]

Thanks Loo for the extra info. So many of these were collected because the licenses were revoked or expired and they had the option to renew. That sounds ok.

Still no answered my original question though. How did the cops know if a weapon was improperly stored? Do they do spot checks? Can they enter your house at any time? XShipRider, if you know the answer I'll take your word for it assuming you're not guessing. No need to post a link if you know it.

As a result of the former maybe?
Asin coming round to inform someone their liscense has expired and when then find out its being kept under a bed?

[sct1886]

The cops are just upholding the law. I'm sure they're also seizing weapons used by criminals.
A large percentage of the firearms used by criminals are stolen from law abiding citizens.
So there's nothing wrong with cops checking to see if they're properly stored..

Crack a history book. I think this guy named Hitler started out with registration, then confiscation and home searches. Your logic or lack thereof is stupefying...


"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[Corrupt]

Crack a history book. I think this guy named Hitler started out with registration, then confiscation and home searches. Your logic or lack thereof is stupefying...


"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Wow we have Hitler references already, that was quicker than usual. That argument just does not follow, by that logic the UK is about to become a dictatorship, so is Germany, France and dozens of other nations that require people to register lethal weapons...

[brainplay]

As a result of the former maybe?
Asin coming round to inform someone their liscense has expired and when then find out its being kept under a bed?

That requires them to enter the house and see it being removed from under the bed. If consentual then its the owners fault for allowing the officers in and allowing them to see their mistake. If not then the officers at some point entered the house and had the right to demand to see the weapon. We are just trying to clear up if there is a statue that allows for that, if a warrant was issued, or if this was somewhat illegal.

Notification in person is a huge waste of resources that could be substituted by a letter in the mail. Heck we get our vehicle registration notices in the mail which is a pretty serious issue here.

[SilentType]

Well Canada's bill of rights is provided through federal statutes. They are only quasi-Constitutional rights and as simple federal statutes can be altered at will by a simple majority rule. I also believe it does very little to incorporate those rights in order to restrict the provincial governments.

From a practical standpoint I believe the majority of Canadians have elected a government that views firearms through the prism of hunting and recreation. This has resulted in restrictions that place a substantial burden on the owners of firearms who possess them for defense. With no real "right to keep and bear arms" this is to be expected. As the majority changes its will the minority will be subject to whatever rule of the day they impose.

Right, wrong, or otherwise what you have in Canada is the majority taking away the rights many in the minority may have believed they had. Troublesome, because if it can happen in regards to the rights to keep and bear arms it can happen to other rights as well.

[SilentType]

Im sorry if I dont see you and your mates as a well regulated militia who therefore might need firearms to fight off dastardly redcoats who want to make you pay tax on cups of tea. It was placed there centuries ago during a revolution. In a modern functional society should you need that right? You're not exactly in Somalia or the 1800s, a nation like the USA should be able to function in the 21st century without its population chaining itself to weapons lest they be oppressed.


Our Second Amendment has served to strengthen and protect liberty in the United States of America for almost 218 years now.

If you understood our Constitution you would understand that the document from the articles to the amendments serves to protect individual/minority rights and does so by having checks against power. These rights are made difficult to restrict and do away with on purpose.

Don't assume that the hearts of men have changed greatly since 1791. I'd rather have the Second Amendment in place and not need it than need it and not have it. The U.S. in the 21st Century may indeed be a very "civil" place, but taking away the Second Amendment would certainly risk changing that in the future.

As a side note, I do not "chain myself" to any firearm any more than I chain myself to my love of freedom. Men place other men in chains. Believing and fighting for liberty sets them free.

[Connaught Ranger]

Many of those who had to surrender their firearms had either let their registrations lapse, or had stashed their guns improperly under beds or in closets.

Seems that some people here overlooked the above bit of the report.:roll:

If the legal gun owner was doing either of the above, then they broke the law, confiscation or a court appearance. No one to blame but themselves for their negligence.

[Geezah]

Seems that some people here overlooked the above bit of the report.:roll:

If the legal gun owner was doing either of the above, then they broke the law, confiscation or a court appearance. No one to blame but themselves for their negligence.


That requires them to enter the house and see it being removed from under the bed. If consentual then its the owners fault for allowing the officers in and allowing them to see their mistake. If not then the officers at some point entered the house and had the right to demand to see the weapon. We are just trying to clear up if there is a statue that allows for that, if a warrant was issued, or if this was somewhat illegal.

Notification in person is a huge waste of resources that could be substituted by a letter in the mail. Heck we get our vehicle registration notices in the mail which is a pretty serious issue here.

Might want to read the highlighted part above.......

[ex Strathcona]

Pawn Shop Clerk (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0588241/)These are brand new; we just got them in. That's a good gun. Just touch the trigger, the beam comes on and you put the red dot where you want the bullet to go. You can't miss. Anything else?
The Terminator (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000216/): Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
Pawn Shop Clerk (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0588241/): Hey, just what you see pal.

Terminator fanboy STRONG!!!11! p-)

Thanks Loo for the extra info. So many of these were collected because the licenses were revoked or expired and they had the option to renew. That sounds ok.

Still no answered my original question though. How did the cops know if a weapon was improperly stored? Do they do spot checks? Can they enter your house at any time? XShipRider, if you know the answer I'll take your word for it assuming you're not guessing. No need to post a link if you know it.


you quoted the movie right, but it was bad science, big bad terminator asking for a gun with the stopping power of an easy bake oven
;)

[TheOpposition]

Citizens who obey the laws, register their firearms are just very easy targets for firearm confiscation. Then people wonder why people do not trust the government. Play by the rules and be the first ones punished. There are already laws on the books that add to the punishment when a criminal uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. The criminal is the one who should be punished. All this does is places good citizens against the government and ignores the real criminal.


Don't think anti-government message would help the situation either. Though I "sort of" see why they would take these measures. WHat I dont understand is the overall "WHY" that they are doing it. Now I dont live in Canada but i sure as heck dont recall hearing about many gun related crimes over there. Its like burning down a house to get rid of termites when you never had them in the first place.

I guess i have mixed feeling on this one. I fuly support the gun owners, but maybe the authorities meant well. They just didnt execute it in the best of ways. Like I said though I dont understand where on earth they even got the idea from since Canada doesnt have a lot of violent crime.

[Connaught Ranger]

Might want to read the highlighted part above.......



Many of those who had to surrender their firearms had either let their registrations lapse,

Practice what you preach. :roll:

[Geezah]

Practice what you preach. :roll:

Sh!te, we could play this game all night!


or had stashed their guns improperly under beds or in closets.

SO, how exactly did the Law know they were stashed improperly under beds or in closets if your registration is in order?

[Flounder]

Simple. Read my post on page 2. The Firearms Act in Canada allows for warrantless searches in 2 scenarios:

1. Firearms Inspector has consent.
"Why hello there, I see you have some registered firearms. Mind if we come in for a look?"
"Why certainly Officer, come on in."
"Oh, what have we here...."

2. The Firearms Inspector has given the owner "reasonable notice" that an inspection will occur. God only knows what exactly "reasonable notice" actually is.

So maybe some naive gun owners let them in to have a look, and their storage methods did not meet the Officer's definition of "secure storage". Or maybe they just mailed out some letters, figured they had done their bit to provide "reasonable notice", and there you go.

I have also heard anecdotal stories about some Ontario firearms owners being charged with "unsafe storage" because theives had managed to break through the huge vault door on their gun rooms when the owners were away on vacation. Can't back this up with a source at the moment, if anyone doesn't believe this I could probably dig something up.

[Connaught Ranger]

Some of the gun nuts just cant accept that when a gun owner breaks the law by not securing the weapon or having the correct up to date paper work, and subsequently the weapon is confiscated, that it can be done by a legal means, its all a mass government conspiracy to deprive them of the "precious" and their rights, if the fvcking idiots obeyed the law and regulations with regards firearms they would still have their toys.:roll:

[Clayton Gold]

While I understand the necessity of following the law involving firearm safety regs - the issue to me is the the poor use of police resources.

I mean, if they are arbitrarily going into peoples' homes, why not better use these resources to arbitrarily stop and search the (literally) thousands of thug-losers who are on the streets of Toronto.

Everyone knows that the problem with gunplay in Toronto has nothing to do with those registering their firearms.

Toronto police can call this a great success, but what have they really done, besides a PR stunt ?

@CR: Simmer down. This is a good discussion, and your points are valid. Your usual flame posts with rolleyes are not needed.

[Connaught Ranger]

While I understand the necessity of following the law involving firearm safety regs - the issue to me is the the poor use of police resources.

I mean, if they are arbitrarily going into peoples' homes, why not better use these resources to arbitrarily stop and search the (literally) thousands of thug-losers who are on the streets of Toronto.

Everyone knows that the problem with gunplay in Toronto has nothing to do with those registering their firearms.

Toronto police can call this a great success, but what have they really done, besides a PR stunt ?

@CR: Simmer down. This is a good discussion, and your points are valid. Your usual flame posts with rolleyes are not needed.

Yeah right, nice of you to notice :roll: but in case its slipped your attention its part of the police's job to enforce the law, a criminal is a criminal, regardless of the fact, if he is a "thug-loser" or a "gun owner" not following the regulations.

Connaught Ranger.p-)

[Clayton Gold]

Yeah right, nice of you to notice :roll: but in case its slipped your attention (o person who aspires to be a moderator :roll:) its part of the police's job to enforce the law, a criminal is a criminal, regardless of the fact, if he is a "thug-loser" or a "gun owner" not following the regulations.

Connaught Ranger.p-)

Your post contains nothing to address what I just posted.

If you consider this an efficient use of limited police resources, while the real problem is largely being ignored - your priorities are skewed.

Continue with your angry ranting.

[Connaught Ranger]

Your post contains nothing to address what I just posted.

If you consider this an efficient use of limited police resources, while the real problem is largely being ignored - your priorities are skewed.

Continue with your angry ranting.

What ranting, that the Police were doing their job. p-)

[Clayton Gold]

What ranting, that the Police were doing their job. p-)

You are arguing a point that I did not disagree with you on. Yet ignoring the view that this operation was one of futility - when you look at the situation in Toronto. The real problem is being ignored here, for the sake of some cheap political points with the NDP crowd.

Please don't take my opinion as an anti-police view. My family includes police officers, and a crown attourney - I am a police supporter. I just don't agree with the tactics used to deal with the problem in this case.

[SilentType]

Disagreement with tactics or laws does not make you anti-police. I feel fairly confident you could find members of the police force that feel the exact same way.

[Corrupt]

Just for the sake of not starting a new thread, can we please get some opinions on firearms safety then, as it appears these weapons were seized due to a lack of registration or safe storage.
Personally I think some form of locked cage/cabinet is required when they're not in use, preferably with ammunition stored seperately, but some (such as Geez) appear to think its up to the owners to do what they want in their own homes, regardless of how insecure is may be to people over the pond such as myself.
What about registration as well? Is it necessary even if they do nothing more than keep your name on a list? Or should you be able to have one covertly

[Geezah]

Just for the sake of not starting a new thread, can we please get some opinions on firearms safety then, as it appears these weapons were seized due to a lack of registration or safe storage.

The arguement or discussion went on to how LE entered the homes and if they had a right to enter just because you own a registered firearm.
This was addressed.



Personally I think some form of locked cage/cabinet is required when they're not in use, preferably with ammunition stored seperately, but some (such as Geez) appear to think its up to the owners to do what they want in their own homes,

I'm a big boy with kids in my home, I should(as a law abiding citizen of the US) be allowed to store the firearms as I see fit.
I have a safe(because I chose to do this), which is behind a locked door. I also have a shotty hidden in our bedroom, which is out of reach of the almost 5yr old and the 9mth old baby.



regardless of how insecure is may be to people over the pond such as myself.

All I will say is I once felt the way you do, even though I had an air rifle from the age of 13 and also shot firearms whenever we came to the US for visits.
I moved here in Oct 96 from West London and it wasn't until Jan 02 that I purchased my first firearm.
When I first moved here, my cousin at the time had his CCW at the age of 19 and carried almost all the time. I felt uneasy about it, thinking he could go nuts at any moment. The thing I ignored was, he met all the guidelines set by the State of Indiana to carry legally.




What about registration as well? Is it necessary even if they do nothing more than keep your name on a list? Or should you be able to have one covertly

Not having a firearm registered does not equal covert.
I could inherit a firearm, I could be given one as a gift, this does not mean I am hiding anything, it just means there is no requirement by law for me to register my firearms.

When I purchase a new firearm though, I will fill out Form 4473 which is then phoned into the Federal Government for an instant background check. While the Federal Government cannot keep records of this, the location that I purchased thefirearm must keep a copy on hand for life.
So in essence the authorities could trace the firearm to the first person that purchased it. I could however go on to sell this firearm to someone else through a private purchase.
As I understand it, all that is required is for me to believe that the purchased is not a criminal or has a criminal record.

When I have sold firearms in private sales, most times we have shown each other our Concealed Carry Permits, as there is a backgorund check done when you apply for these and they can be revoked at any time. So it proves both parties are law abiding.


Please remember that owning a firearm is a RIGHT here, not a privilege.

[11 Bravo]

Would it not have made more sense all around if the canuck authorities had not simply mailed the individuals that had lapsed registrations ( no 2nd amendment right there ! ) asking to pay up within X-amount of time or face surrender of the registration and compensation for said pistol(s). Seems it would have saved money and not slighted some peaceful citizens.
But I keep forgetting how evil guns are in canada and the coppers need to make the propaganda for their gun grab. And the people take it in the arse again !.

[Corrupt]

I'm a big boy with kids in my home, I should(as a law abiding citizen of the US) be allowed to store the firearms as I see fit.
I have a safe(because I chose to do this), which is behind a locked door. I also have a shotty hidden in our bedroom, which is out of reach of the almost 5yr old and the 9mth old baby.

When I first moved here, my cousin at the time had his CCW at the age of 19 and carried almost all the time. I felt uneasy about it, thinking he could go nuts at any moment. The thing I ignored was, he met all the guidelines set by the State of Indiana to carry legally.

Please remember that owning a firearm is a RIGHT here, not a privilege.

1) Yes, but is it safe from any unsavouries who may break in if you're out of the house?

2) I'm not worried about people with ccw, I'm on about weapons not locked away and not within arms reach of the person whose care its meant to be in

3) Yes it may be a right, but is the police asking you to register having one preventing you from owning it? No its not, its merely for their records so that should anyone suddenly decide to rob a bank, shoot their neighbour or whatever they have idea where to start

[Geezah]

1) Yes, but is it safe from any unsavouries who may break in if you're out of the house?

You could continue with that arguement and say that crims could also cary my safe out of the house.
I have no control over criminals and the laws they choose to break, but I should not be chastised because of those few that choose not to obey the law.



2) I'm not worried about people with ccw, I'm on about weapons not locked away and not within arms reach of the person whose care its meant to be in

There is no requirement by law to keep arms locked away, so basically the discussion stops there.
Now there are many like myself that choose to protect their inestments by purchasing safes, but this is a choice and is not required by law.



3) Yes it may be a right, but is the police asking you to register having one preventing you from owning it?

The RIGHT to own firearms is a RIGHT that shall not be INFRINGED upon. Registration is an infringement on that RIGHT.

If I choose to keep records of my firearms for my own personal use and if those firearms are stolen I could then pass that info onto LEOs. The chances of those firearms ever being recovered is a big 0.



No its not, its merely for their records so that should anyone suddenly decide to rob a bank, shoot their neighbour or whatever they have idea where to start

Please, their records, just stop there.
Please explain to me how firearms being registered have ever stopped crimes taking place apart from amok killings?

[SilentType]

Just for the sake of not starting a new thread, can we please get some opinions on firearms safety then, as it appears these weapons were seized due to a lack of registration or safe storage.
Personally I think some form of locked cage/cabinet is required when they're not in use, preferably with ammunition stored seperately, but some (such as Geez) appear to think its up to the owners to do what they want in their own homes, regardless of how insecure is may be to people over the pond such as myself.
What about registration as well? Is it necessary even if they do nothing more than keep your name on a list? Or should you be able to have one covertly

Depends on how you view firearms. If you view firearms as recreational items used for hunting and target practice than I suppose it would make sense to require them to be locked up for you.

Many however view firearms as "defensive" items. If you can not keep that firearm ready so that you can bear it in self-defense than you've just had that right taken away from you.

I keep my pistol out of my safe at all times while I am home. I sleep with it on my nightstand. It is not in "use," because I'm not shooting it. It is however within reach and ready for defensive use, because I am not required to lock it up. There have been many cases where people who were smaller in stature or more advanced in age than their attackers have prevailed, because they have had ready access to a firearm. True firearms can be stolen or obtained by children in some cases, BUT we don't like to punish everyone for the acts of the criminal or irresponsible. We like to keep our freedoms until we deserve to lose them after due process of law. It's a system that has worked very well for us for over 200 years.

Oh and the view point that "a man's home is his castle" should not be too foreign a concept since it stems from old English common law.

[Geezah]

Oh and the view point that "a man's home is his castle" should not be too foreign a concept since it stems from old English common law.

So does the 2nd Am, originally penned by William Blackstone. Our Bill of Rights is based on the British Bill of Rights.