Misdialed 911 call leads RCMP to home with 100 unsecured guns

Of all the dumb luck..both good and bad....

Quote:

---

94 long guns, 6 handguns seized from Yarmouth County home in Nova Scotia, police say

RCMP stumbled upon 100 unsecured guns earlier this week while checking on a home in Nova Scotia's Yarmouth County after the resident misdialed 911, police say.

A 73-year-old man was arrested and faces charges of unsafe storage of a firearm, and police seized all 100 guns, RCMP said in a news release on Wednesday.

The "unusual discovery" was made Monday around 11 a.m. AT while police were checking to ensure there was no emergency at his Chebogue home.

Ninety-four long guns and six handguns were taken.

The man legally had possession of the guns, said Cpl. Jennifer Clarke.

"They did actually speak to the person on the phone at the time of the call and he said there was no emergency and that he was trying to dial 411," said Clarke.

Clarke said RCMP have to respond to all 911 calls, even hangups or misdials.

"When the police officers went to the individual's home, they felt that they needed to get inside the home to make sure there was no emergency," said Clarke. "With permission from the homeowner, they did enter the home."

Guns were found throughout the house, none of them secured, she said.

"What we should be seeing with something like a rifle is that it was disabled or locked in one way."

The man was later released and is scheduled to appear in Yarmouth provincial court in October

---

https://i.imgur.com/6ZOkxOFm.jpg

I sure hope there were no guns of any real value in that “pile”....

Even at 150 a pop adds up quick. Wonder if they are going to let him “buy them back”.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saskfly

Even at 150 a pop adds up quick. Wonder if they are going to let him “buy them back”.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Good chance they are destined for the chopper, unless he gets a good lawyer.

All those firearms laying around and not one of them secured? Even just a simple trigger lock on each one would have been legal (except for the "R" class,of course). That's a very special kind of stupid besides being incredibly irresponsible. Yeah,they'll skin him,alright. He needs a big boot in the arse.:madman:

[QUOTE=trimmer21;1089194]All those firearms laying around and not one of them secured? Even just a simple trigger lock on each one would have been legal (except for the "R" class,of course). That's a very special kind of stupid besides being incredibly irresponsible. Yeah,they'll skin him,alright. He needs a big boot in the arse.:madman:[/QUOTE

I have to agree with you. He is probably a fine man, maybe even a grandpa with good intent, but this sort of thing does no good for the rest of us?

Maybe one of those old guys who never upgraded from the old FAC and not fully aware of the new storage laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Maybe one of those old guys who never upgraded from the old FAC and not fully aware of the new storage laws.

---

"old guys" He's only 73?:silly:

That is the kind of person who should not have guns

Your right not old, Ancient.

Don't know who he is made a few calls he definitely wasn't involved in the fishery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

"old guys" He's only 73?:silly:

---

Actually 60 is quite old :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Actually 60 is quite old :)

---

It is if you're only 20.;)

50 is the new 20.:shades:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It is if you're only 20.;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Maybe one of those old guys who never upgraded from the old FAC and not fully aware of the new storage laws.

---

Must have been living under a rock somewhere then!

Actually many people didn't upgrade to the PAL or register their firearms. I new many people who did not register in fact i only knew of one person who did.

As well not everyone had an FAC, that was only needed if you were buying another firearm, you didn't need any license to own firearms years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dakota Creek

Must have been living under a rock somewhere then!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dakota Creek

Must have been living under a rock somewhere then!

---

Don't judge someones lifestyle, you don't know how many of these old recluse type guys live in the rural areas. Some of them are functionally illiterate and don't socialize much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Actually many people didn't upgrade to the PAL or register their firearms. I new many people who did not register in fact i only knew of one person who did.

As well not everyone had an FAC, that was only needed if you were buying another firearm, you didn't need any license to own firearms years ago.

---

My response was nothing to do with buying or registering firearms …… I don't care if you have one or one hundred ….. just common sense about storing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Don't judge someones lifestyle, you don't know how many of these old recluse type guys live in the rural areas. Some of them are functionally illiterate and don't socialize much.

---

With unsafe storage like this and if your comment is the true reasoning behind the unsafe storage, in this day and age with individuals like the two from BC running thru rural Canada, good thing the RCMP found these before the criminal element did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dakota Creek

good thing the RCMP found these before the criminal element did.

---

My feelings too..ergo why I said some "good" luck...in regards to the general population...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Don't judge someones lifestyle, you don't know how many of these old recluse type guys live in the rural areas. Some of them are functionally illiterate and don't socialize much.

---

What? When someones 'lifestyle' affects the safety of others , then it sure is time to judge, and step in. Hell people want to judge others lifestyle all the time, gay for example, but we should not judge someone breaking firearms law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Don't judge someones lifestyle, you don't know how many of these old recluse type guys live in the rural areas. Some of them are functionally illiterate and don't socialize much.

---

I like your approach to the age thing, MikePal, as a wise philosopher (Aristotle I believe) once put it,
“Old in years or old in character, the weakness lies not in time lived, but in living and choosing pursuits according to the emotion.”


I have to wonder if the old guy lives alone, and with no one else in the household to secure the guns against, he saw no point in disabling them. If there is no one around the household that requires you to exercises any precautions, he might have reasoned there was no need to have the guns disable. Another example might be all the guns are disabled with combination trigger locks all household member have firearm licences and all know the combination. The irony is where does reason end and nonsense begin.


An argument might be the guns are safe guarded against a thieve breaking in and stealing them. The trigger locks are there to inhibit immediate use of the firearm by unqualified user. A thieve who steals them will have plenty of time to figure out a way to get around the trigger lock.


You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

I like your approach to the age thing, MikePal, as a wise philosopher (Aristotle I believe) once put it,
“Old in years or old in character, the weakness lies not in time lived, but in living and choosing pursuits according to the emotion.”


I have to wonder if the old guy lives alone, and with no one else in the household to secure the guns against, he saw no point in disabling them. If there is no one around the household that requires you to exercises any precautions, he might have reasoned there was no need to have the guns disable. Another example might be all the guns are disabled with combination trigger locks all household member have firearm licences and all know the combination. The irony is where does reason end and nonsense begin.


An argument might be the guns are safe guarded against a thieve breaking in and stealing them. The trigger locks are there to inhibit immediate use of the firearm by unqualified user. A thieve who steals them will have plenty of time to figure out a way to get around the trigger lock.


You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

A keyed trigger lock can be removed in 10 sec with a knife or screw driver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

A keyed trigger lock can be removed in 10 sec with a knife or screw driver.

---

Yes, but it satisfies the regulations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

A keyed trigger lock can be removed in 10 sec with a knife or screw driver.

---

Trigger locks are only designed as a first level of security to prevent unauthorized use "in the heat of the moment" by emotionally upset individuals,children or irresponsible adults. The theory is that by the time someone finds the firearm,finds ammo and searches for tools to break the lock,their fit of pique or rage has subsided to the point where they've regained their composure. The second and best level of security is a locked closet,cabinet or safe which cannot be easily broken into. Out of sight,out of mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Don't judge someones lifestyle, you don't know how many of these old recluse type guys live in the rural areas. Some of them are functionally illiterate and don't socialize much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dakota Creek

My response was nothing to do with buying or registering firearms …… I don't care if you have one or one hundred ….. just common sense about storing!

---

The article states the man was legally in possession of the guns, which would make one assume that he was properly licensed? One would therefore assume he had a RPAL? He was probably familiar with proper storage regulations and they may have been, but for a couple he was perhaps cleaning? We don't know from the story, what exactly the situation was in regards to storage? The attending officer could have been a stooge not familiar with proper storage? The door to the vault, room or whatever could have been open for the officer to see?

We will never hear the real story unless we attend the court case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

A keyed trigger lock can be removed in 10 sec with a knife or screw driver.

---

Gee , I guess the guy who forgot his trigger lock keys a couple of years ago at hunt camp should have known that. It took him quite awhile with a wide range of tools. Eventually he drilled it out. It was a Masterlock if anyone wants to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Gee , I guess the guy who forgot his trigger lock keys a couple of years ago at hunt camp should have known that. It took him quite awhile with a wide range of tools. Eventually he drilled it out. It was a Masterlock if anyone wants to know.

---

Drilling is about the only way with anything other then the simple type that comes with a gun you just bought.

Wonder how Jim did it with a knife?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Wonder how Jim did it with a knife?

---

It's easily done with the ones you buy at most gun shops and CTC. these are made by Master Lock., over the years I have done a few at the club when the owners either forgot or misplaced their key.
Also there seems to be only 5 series of different keys, if you have one of each series of locks, you are set to open any of them with the keys you have.
When you have a lock off the gun, take it apart and remove the rubber pieces, you can soon figure it out by looking at the ratchet bar part and what makes it work hold , opposite the keyed end. hint [ it's the little springy ratchet bar]

He was home, he could have been cleaning, admiring or working on them? If he was not home and the firearms were not secured, then maybe but he was home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Gee , I guess the guy who forgot his trigger lock keys a couple of years ago at hunt camp should have known that. It took him quite awhile with a wide range of tools. Eventually he drilled it out. It was a Masterlock if anyone wants to know.

---

Masterlock's can easily be removed with a screwdriver. Bin there done that with one I loaned out and he lost the key...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

It's easily done with the ones you buy at most gun shops and CTC. these are made by Master Lock., over the years I have done a few at the club when the owners either forgot or misplaced their key.
Also there seems to be only 5 series of different keys, if you have one of each series of locks, you are set to open any of them with the keys you have.
When you have a lock off the gun, take it apart and remove the rubber pieces, you can soon figure it out by looking at the ratchet bar part and what makes it work hold , opposite the keyed end. hint [ it's the little springy ratchet bar]

---

Yep. That's how we did it a couple of weeks ago at our gun club.

Are you not allowed by law to have a firearm readily available in rural areas. Theres proly more to the story, but don't for one second think the police are on your side if you own firearms, they most often are not. Many licenced firearms owner have been charged with unsafe storage, when they have met the storage requirements. If I remember the correct name, High river Alberta that had flooding a couple years back. Police kicking in the doors of evacuated locked houses and stealing firearms from lawful owners. Any police knocks on my door, they can produce a warrant, otherwise I close the door no entry. Obviously this old boy allowed entry and will learn the hard way they are not firearm friendly....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Are you not allowed by law to have a firearm readily available in rural areas.

---

Beg to differ...

Quote:

---

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.

---

(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.

This is the one that creates a bit of confusion for me? Has this ever been defined in a court of law? Downtown Ottawa may not be remote wilderness, but what about 40 miles northeast of the Soo at my cabin that is surrounded by bush? I've got bears that regularly visit. Got pictures of yotes prowling at night looking for a meal.
Do I consider it remote wilderness? No, the road is at the end of my driveway. But who gets to define that little tidbit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

(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.

This is the one that creates a bit of confusion for me? Has this ever been defined in a court of law? Downtown Ottawa may not be remote wilderness, but what about 40 miles northeast of the Soo at my cabin that is surrounded by bush? I've got bears that regularly visit. Got pictures of yotes prowling at night looking for a meal.
Do I consider it remote wilderness? No, the road is at the end of my driveway. But who gets to define that little tidbit?

---

You would likely fall under sub (2), exception...
Predator control.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

(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.

This is the one that creates a bit of confusion for me? Has this ever been defined in a court of law? Downtown Ottawa may not be remote wilderness, but what about 40 miles northeast of the Soo at my cabin that is surrounded by bush? I've got bears that regularly visit. Got pictures of yotes prowling at night looking for a meal.
Do I consider it remote wilderness? No, the road is at the end of my driveway. But who gets to define that little tidbit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

You would likely fall under sub (2), exception...
Predator control.....

---

He is also remote in that the bear can get through the door before 911 does him much good.

(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.

If he can sit on his property and legally hunt it's "Remote enough".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

He is also remote in that the bear can get through the door before 911 does him much good.

(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.

If he can sit on his property and legally hunt it's "Remote enough".

---

Remote wilderness area, is open for interpretation....sub(2) removes the need for that interpretation !! Either way, there wouldn’t be a concern..
A landowner in any rural area can sit on his property and hunt, as you put it, but it is by no means remote wilderness area....however, a farmer just outside of a city that is having problems with fox or yotes getting his chickens, would fall under sub(2) exceptions. That is the intent of the legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

He is also remote in that the bear can get through the door before 911 does him much good.

---

I will guarantee, without a doubt, 911 would not be notified. ;) SSS

No one seems to have any problem with the RCMP responding to the call after being told it was unnecessary and then requesting entry to the home, for what reason? He should have told them thanks, but no, have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

No one seems to have any problem with the RCMP responding to the call after being told it was unnecessary and then requesting entry to the home, for what reason? He should have told them thanks, but no, have a nice day.

---

It’s not that easy with a 911 call. They are duty bound to ensure there are no issues at the residence. Refusing entrance will only cause more suspicion and likely result in a search of the residence.

There's a chance this one gets tossed for Charter reasons.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

You would likely fall under sub (2), exception...
Predator control.....

---

See, thats some good thinking right there? That's why I hired you?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

There's a chance this one gets tossed for Charter reasons.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Only if he STFU and gets a decent lawyer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

There's a chance this one gets tossed for Charter reasons.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

I doubt it. Especially when he gave them permission to enter. Any guns in plain view that were improperly stored, can be seized, and charges laid. A warrant would be required to search further, unless they can satisfy the court that a further search was needed to make sure no emergencies existed. If not, any guns found after the plain view search would not be admissible. The offences can still be proven with the evidence of the first guns seen.

I had a keyed trigger lock on my gun one morning when I got to the blind forgot to bring my key, takes a few seconds to remove with no key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Gee , I guess the guy who forgot his trigger lock keys a couple of years ago at hunt camp should have known that. It took him quite awhile with a wide range of tools. Eventually he drilled it out. It was a Masterlock if anyone wants to know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I doubt it. Especially when he gave them permission to enter.

---

The story I read on this suggested he didn't give them permission. That would change everything as long as they were in pain sight. And with 100 of them I would think at least one would have to be. :)

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

If the man was home could he not say that they were in plain sight because he was inspecting them for routine maintenance? Safe storage doesn’t mean all firearms must be under lock & key at all times?

Everyone seems to want to defend the guy.:confused: Does no one think what he did was illegal and he should be held to account for it? Why not? As a fellow gun owner, I do not appreciate people found with unsecured guns, let alone a hundred of them. More ammo for the anti's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Everyone seems to want to defend the guy.:confused: Does no one think what he did was illegal and he should be held to account for it? Why not? As a fellow gun owner, I do not appreciate people found with unsecured guns, let alone a hundred of them.

---

It can be true that what he did was illegal, yet also true that there are Charter concerns with police asserting the power to search purely on the basis of a misdialled 911 call. To me the Charter concern outranks the storage offence.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Most people want them to thoroughly investigate all 911 calls, "sorry it was a miss-dial" does not cover it..... Many here say they want people punished for their gun crimes to the fullest extent of the law, but why in this case are people looking for loopholes to get him off? Could it be that he is not a black kid in the city?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Most people want them to thoroughly investigate all 911 calls, "sorry it was a miss-dial" does not cover it.

---

What "most people" want changes suddenly when they find themselves facing police demanding to search their homes or vehicles in the absence of reasonable grounds. And a 911 misdial is not reasonable grounds: they need reason to believe a specific offence has been committed.

You have a Charter right to be secure from unjustified searches. Granted, we don't know the full details here. But this is definitely a situation that raises Charter concerns.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Catch 22.... Did he dial it ? Is it his phone? Did he take it from someone after the 911 call? How will they know if they don't look? Lets just take everyone's word at the door,...... nothing to see here , move on. Could end up being a, 'put the lotion in the basket' , scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

What "most people" want changes suddenly when they find themselves facing police demanding to search their homes or vehicles in the absence of reasonable grounds. And a 911 misdial is not reasonable grounds: they need reason to believe a specific offence has been committed.

You have a Charter right to be secure from unjustified searches. Granted, we don't know the full details here. But this is definitely a situation that raises Charter concerns.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Best you do a little more research !! Searches due to 911 calls have been ruled to have not violated the charter numerous times.
A 911 call is one of the scenarios that justifies a warrantless search, for good reason. The search has to be reasonable. In other words, searching dresser drawers would not. As I said before, once entry was gained and an offence was in plain view,( Plain View Doctrine, ), and police were or should be satisfied that no one was in danger, they can seize that evidence. However, a warrant would be required to continue with further search of the residence......been there, done that.
R. V Shea comes to mind. Granted, in this case the officer was with a building supervisor when entry was gained because of a broken pipe. The officer observed drugs in plain view. Those drugs were seized, a warrant was obtained resulting in further search and seizure. It boiled down to the officer being there lawfully, witnessing an offence in plain view. The court held there was no charter breach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

What "most people" want changes suddenly when they find themselves facing police demanding to search their homes or vehicles in the absence of reasonable grounds. And a 911 misdial is not reasonable grounds: they need reason to believe a specific offence has been committed.

You have a Charter right to be secure from unjustified searches. Granted, we don't know the full details here. But this is definitely a situation that raises Charter concerns.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

That's what I thought of when I read this article. How many times did they demand to look in the house before he finally agreed. Common sense would tell you that any homeowner would have defended the position that it was an accidental call and no need to search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Best you do a little more research !! Searches due to 911 calls have been ruled to have not violated the charter numerous times.
A 911 call is one of the scenarios that justifies a warrantless search, for good reason.

---

Absolutely!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Everyone seems to want to defend the guy.:confused: Does no one think what he did was illegal and he should be held to account for it? Why not? As a fellow gun owner, I do not appreciate people found with unsecured guns, let alone a hundred of them. More ammo for the anti's.

---

So if I decide to pull out all of my firearms tonight at home and admire/clean/tinker with them, you're saying I should be charged with a storage violation? They're not in storage at that point. Does it make a difference if I have 4 guns or 50?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Come on , are you are going to take dozens of guns out of safe storage at the same time to clean or admire them, in rooms all over the house? If you are going to do that do not call 911. I bet he did not have enough locks or locked storage for all his guns. Sounds like you are trying to justify, or excuse his unsafe storage. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Best you do a little more research !! Searches due to 911 calls have been ruled to have not violated the charter numerous times..

---

Where a crime is reported, there are obvious grounds. But no crime was reported in this instance.

I'm just leaving for Algonquin & no time to check but I believe there is a recent SCC ruling limiting searches pursuant to a 911 call. 2017 or 18?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Where a crime is reported, there are obvious grounds. But no crime was reported in this instance.

I'm just leaving for Algonquin & no time to check but I believe there is a recent SCC ruling limiting searches pursuant to a 911 call. 2017 or 18?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Have a good trip. When you get back, check out Godoy.
A dropped 911 call, guy refuses entry by police.....no crime reported...
This case reinforces warrantless entry, albeit very different circumstances. With the OP case, the reasonableness of entry will be a huge factor. The fact that buddy allowed police entry, eliminates that argument.
The moral of the story....don’t call 911, even by mistake, with your guns laying all over the place !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Most people want them to thoroughly investigate all 911 calls, "sorry it was a miss-dial" does not cover it..... Many here say they want people punished for their gun crimes to the fullest extent of the law, but why in this case are people looking for loopholes to get him off? Could it be that he is not a black kid in the city?

---

Ya but most of these “most people” are liberals and live in Toronto and they also can’t figure out how to get a trigger lock off within a few minutes.............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

Ya but most of these “most people” are liberals and live in Toronto and they also can’t figure out how to get a trigger lock off within a few minutes.............

---

..... and they just cant help themselves to racebait every opportunity they can. Pretty disgusting considering the Eatons Center Mall shooting court decision this week, lowering the charge from murder to manslaughter. Pathetic.
I take no lesson from them clowns.

I've done something similar except it was 611 I was attempting to dial. Two OPP officers showed up about ten minutes later at the front gate. I explained the situation and offered to let them search the house (they didn't ask.) They declined. It wouldn't have been a problem as my guns are legally stored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

. The fact that buddy allowed police entry, eliminates that argument.

---

Even a lawyer who graduated bottom 3rd of his class could win a case of diminished responsibility (capacity)....becasue it's clear that anyone who has 100 guns laying round the house and allows a LEO to come in and have a look around should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were clearly "diminished" or impaired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Even a lawyer who graduated bottom 3rd of his class could win a case of diminished responsibility (capacity)....becasue it's clear that anyone who has 100 guns laying round the house and allows a LEO to come in and have a look around should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were clearly "diminished" or impaired.

---

Given that rationale, anyone committing a criminal offence could say the same !!
Ya can’t fix stupid !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Come on , are you are going to take dozens of guns out of safe storage at the same time to clean or admire them, in rooms all over the house? If you are going to do that do not call 911. I bet he did not have enough locks or locked storage for all his guns. Sounds like you are trying to justify, or excuse his unsafe storage. Why?

---

Because he's not committing any crime by being at home with his guns out of a safe or the trigger lock taken off, regardless if it's 1 or 100. They're charging him on the assumption he leaves them that way all the time.

Should you be charged on the assumption that you'll speed on the way to your cottage?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Because he's not committing any crime by being at home with his guns out of a safe or the trigger lock taken off, regardless if it's 1 or 100. They're charging him on the assumption he leaves them that way all the time.

Should you be charged on the assumption that you'll speed on the way to your cottage?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

---

Well, that would depend on where they were found, or if he even had locks. Lots of information not known here.,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Given that rationale, anyone committing a criminal offence could say the same !!

---

Much easier to convince a judge when your client is a 73 yrs old and happens to fail the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Test and is declared to have dementia :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Much easier to convince a judge when your client is a 73 yrs old and happens to fail the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Test and is declared to have dementia :)

---

If that were the case, the court could order a prohibition and if his lawyer requests, an order of disposition for the guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

If that were the case, the court could order a prohibition and if his lawyer requests, an order of disposition for the guns.

---

Bingo...gets his client off the hook for the more serious fines and the general public is no longer at risk...everyone wins.

One of our group pocket dialed 911 in the middle of a deer drive a couple of years ago. They called him back on his cell. He explained the situation and Seaforth OPP felt no obligation to come out to the swamp and make sure we were all okay... Over zealous police work IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

One of our group pocket dialed 911 in the middle of a deer drive a couple of years ago. They called him back on his cell. He explained the situation and Seaforth OPP felt no obligation to come out to the swamp and make sure we were all okay... Over zealous police work IMO

---

Nope. It's good police work. It's not top of the list and if not followed up it is because they have higher priority calls to attend to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

One of our group pocket dialed 911 in the middle of a deer drive a couple of years ago. They called him back on his cell. He explained the situation and Seaforth OPP felt no obligation to come out to the swamp and make sure we were all okay... Over zealous police work IMO

---

Quite likely the cphone’s location didn’t show up on their map. A similar call from a residence would result in a much different response...

The OP's original posting stated, with permission of the home owner police entered. Being cooperative with police does not always work out. Never allow them in your residence or vehicle unless they have a warrant. Once you allow them in your house or vehicle without a warrant, blame yourself when things don't work out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

The OP's original posting stated, with permission of the home owner police entered. Being cooperative with police does not always work out. Never allow them in your residence or vehicle unless they have a warrant. Once you allow them in your house or vehicle without a warrant, blame yourself when things don't work out.

---

It's very good advice if you are breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

The OP's original posting stated, with permission of the home owner police entered. Being cooperative with police does not always work out. Never allow them in your residence or vehicle unless they have a warrant. Once you allow them in your house or vehicle without a warrant, blame yourself when things don't work out.

---

Yup, agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Should you be charged on the assumption that you'll speed on the way to your cottage?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

---

If you have ever been on a 400 highway you would have to admit that would be safe to assume with way too many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

It's very good advice if you are breaking the law.

---

I am still waiting on the evidence.

I know of a number of LEOs that had no idea what the gun laws were, storage and ownership laws included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I am still waiting on the evidence.

I know of a number of LEOs that had no idea what the gun laws were, storage and ownership laws included.

---

I had a Constable try to tell me I would be charged with having a loaded firearm in a vehicle because there were shells in the ammo carrier on the butt stock. You should have heard that conversation. It took her Sergeant to sort her out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I had a Constable try to tell me I would be charged with having a loaded firearm in a vehicle because there were shells in the ammo carrier on the butt stock. You should have heard that conversation. It took her Sergeant to sort her out.

---

Yes, sadly there are lots of stories like that out there. I always argued that every recruit needed to take the CFSC and get a licence. The brass refused, saying it was too expensive. That’s why we hear horror stories like yours.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Yes, sadly there are lots of stories like that out there. I always argued that every recruit needed to take the CFSC and get a licence. The brass refused, saying it was too expensive. That’s why we hear horror stories like yours.....

---

One guy was pissed he could not buy ammo at CT, he had a 22LR and used it to shoot squirrels. He did not have a PAL or have the rifle registered. He then proceeded to tell me it was illegal for civilians to own handguns.

Never open your door to a LEO unless there is a reason for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I know of a number of LEOs that had no idea what the gun laws were, storage and ownership laws included.

---

I keep copies of the RCMP brochure on safe storage in my car and home should a need arise. If a cop doesn't know the law we will straighten it out eventually. If a gun owner doesn't know the law then he is solely responsible for the outcome.

It is your right not to open the door to a police officer upon request but if they want in badly enough they will request a warrant and detain you until it arrives or claim exigent circumstances and go in anyway. The SCC has already ruled in favour of the police who entered a home without a warrant in response to a 911 call after being told by the homeowner there wasn't a problem. R. v. Godoy (1999).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

I keep copies of the RCMP brochure on safe storage in my car and home should a need arise. If a cop doesn't know the law we will straighten it out eventually. If a gun owner doesn't know the law then he is solely responsible for the outcome.

It is your right not to open the door to a police officer upon request but if they want in badly enough they will request a warrant and detain you until it arrives or claim exigent circumstances and go in anyway. The SCC has already ruled in favour of the police who entered a home without a warrant in response to a 911 call after being told by the homeowner there wasn't a problem. R. v. Godoy (1999).

---

I agree with the statement about entering the home, you have to do this, maybe someone else dialed.

The thing that I wanted to bring up is that I am guarded about the actual unsafe storage issue. At this point there is no evidence revealed to the public about it. If the guy had a closet with a lock on the door and all the guns were in there and they needed a key or tools to get in then they would meet the requirement, although opening a closet to see 100 guns may cause the cops to lose their you know what and just start piling them into the car.

You hear in the media things like "thousands or rounds of ammunition", well, do they mean 22LR? 7.62x39? 50 BMG? It is really easy to have thousands of rounds of 22LR kicking around, this is normal for many shooters.

"They did actually speak to the person on the phone at the time of the call and he said there was no emergency and that he was trying to dial 411," said Clarke.

Clarke said RCMP have to respond to all 911 calls, even hangups or misdials.

"When the police officers went to the individual's home, they felt that they needed to get inside the home to make sure there was no emergency," said Clarke. "With permission from the homeowner, they did enter the home."



It's safe to say the responding officer was told twice that the call was a misdial. Once from dispatch and once by the homeowner. Big difference from the supposed case law mentioned above.
Every case will be based on it's own facts.

So what was the bases for their feeling a need to enter? It'll be this, that will be tested against the homeowners charter rights.

Ask yourselves why Spl. Clarke needs to report that the officers felt they needed to get inside. If the homeowner was so cooperative and let them in right away, why make the statement in the first place?
The answer is, he didn't want them in the house and the police claimed they needed to go in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

"They did actually speak to the person on the phone at the time of the call and he said there was no emergency and that he was trying to dial 411," said Clarke. ....

....Ask yourselves why Spl. Clarke needs to report that the officers felt they needed to get inside. If the homeowner was so cooperative and let them in right away, why make the statement in the first place?

---

Very well put and with the limited facts we have, does raise the question; were they with in their obligation to enter his residence ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

"They did actually speak to the person on the phone at the time of the call and he said there was no emergency and that he was trying to dial 411," said Clarke.

Clarke said RCMP have to respond to all 911 calls, even hangups or misdials.

"When the police officers went to the individual's home, they felt that they needed to get inside the home to make sure there was no emergency," said Clarke. "With permission from the homeowner, they did enter the home."



It's safe to say the responding officer was told twice that the call was a misdial. Once from dispatch and once by the homeowner. Big difference from the supposed case law mentioned above.
Every case will be based on it's own facts.

So what was the bases for their feeling a need to enter? It'll be this, that will be tested against the homeowners charter rights.

Ask yourselves why Spl. Clarke needs to report that the officers felt they needed to get inside. If the homeowner was so cooperative and let them in right away, why make the statement in the first place?
The answer is, he didn't want them in the house and the police claimed needed to go in.

---

If he was home and licensed then how would a gun outside of being loaded and unattended not be legal? You are allowed to have your guns out in your home with you there, that is not storage. If you were not allowed to then you would not be allowed to take them out of the cabinet and put them into a case without breaking the law.

There is something missing, potentially a lot missing here.

There is something missing, potentially a lot missing here.[/QUOTE]
Yep, all the questions and answers once they got into the house.
Like, do you have trigger locks for all these guns? Answer....nope.
Is this where you normally leave all your guns? Answer....yep.
Done deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Very well put and with the limited facts we have, does raise the question; were they with in their obligation to enter his residence ?

---

No not at all if they needed permission and had no warrant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

There is something missing, potentially a lot missing here.

---

Yep, all the questions and answers once they got into the house.
Like, do you have trigger locks for all these guns? Answer....nope.
Is this where you normally leave all your guns? Answer....yep.
Done deal[/QUOTE]

So you are saying that he said that he said too much?

Still not enough information.

I don't have a clue what he said. I'm assuming the questions i mentioned above would be pretty standard for an officer who observed guns laying around the house.
But if he has trigger locks in the house for all the guns or a large enough safe, then your point/argument could come into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

I don't have a clue what he said. I'm assuming the questions i mentioned above would be pretty standard for an officer who observed guns laying around the house.
But if he has trigger locks in the house for all the guns or a large enough safe, then your point/argument could come into play.

---

All he has to do is put them in the spare bathroom( no windows) and have a lock.

Not that hard to comply with storage laws.

When I said safe, I was referring to all containers that can be locked without easy access.
I would also suggest that you be sure that the door hinge pins are on the inside if you think you're good to go with room storage.

One might also think it reasonable for regional, provincial and federal LEO's to have taken the firearms course and qualify for an RPAL and to know the course information for the safe handling and storage of their personal sidearms. Many may have but it's not a requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

One might also think it reasonable for regional, provincial and federal LEO's to have taken the firearms course and qualify for an RPAL and to know the course information for the safe handling and storage of their personal sidearms. Many may have but it's not a requirement.

---

How many firearms have been stolen/lost by police and the military? last count according to reports, 565.
TALK ABOUT SAFE STORAGE AND HANDLING ?????????? maybe it,s time THEY took the course!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

How many firearms have been stolen/lost by police and the military? last count according to reports, 565.
TALK ABOUT SAFE STORAGE AND HANDLING ?????????? maybe it,s time THEY took the course!

---

X5000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

I don't have a clue what he said. I'm assuming the questions i mentioned above would be pretty standard for an officer who observed guns laying around the house.
But if he has trigger locks in the house for all the guns or a large enough safe, then your point/argument could come into play.

---

A bedroom with a lock on the door is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

When I said safe, I was referring to all containers that can be locked without easy access.
I would also suggest that you be sure that the door hinge pins are on the inside if you think you're good to go with room storage.

---

The pins do not need to be on the inside, if they need a tool to get into the room (screwdriver) then you have met the requirements.

The safety requirements have nothing to do with theft, they have everything to do with slowing someone unauthorized to access the firearms, mainly kids.

The $5000 gun safes can be broken into with cordless tools, they just take a little less time than a hollow core door.

The difference between locking your house and a bedroom is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

The difference between locking your house and a bedroom is?

---

Non-restricted firearms

Attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock (or remove the bolt) so the firearms cannot be fired; or
Lock the firearms in a cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into.

Those are the rules from the RCMP.

Do with it what you want, not going back and forth over all this crap again. Every single year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Non-restricted firearms

Attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock (or remove the bolt) so the firearms cannot be fired; or
Lock the firearms in a cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into.

Those are the rules from the RCMP.

Do with it what you want, not going back and forth over all this crap again. Every single year.

---

I have not seen an interior door lock yet that was difficult to break into.....you may think that meets the requirement, but I can tell you it will not, should you have an issue..but you conduct yourself as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I have not seen an interior door lock yet that was difficult to break into.

---

Had this discussion with a friend...he wanted to spend a fortune on a metal door with remote controlled electric locks etc etc...

I said if I wanted to get into that room....I'd take two steps sideways and punch a hole through the Gyproc wall beside the door... a hand saw will get you in in minutes :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I have not seen an interior door lock yet that was difficult to break into.....you may think that meets the requirement, but I can tell you it will not, should you have an issue..but you conduct yourself as you see fit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Had this discussion with a friend...he wanted to spend a fortune on a metal door with remote controlled electric locks etc etc...

I said if I wanted to get into that room....I'd take two steps sideways and punch a hole through the Gyproc wall beside the door... a hand saw will get you in in minutes :)

---

Yeah, that was what i was driving at essentially. You take your chances letting the courts decide whether your storage room is "hard" to break into.

Most hinge pins I've removed can be done with just fingers. Certainly not hard.

My guess is, the officers laid the charge because the homeowner wasn't able to show "where" he stores the 100 guns. Be it, not enough trigger locks, not large enough safe or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

My guess is, the officers laid the charge because the homeowner wasn't able to show "where" he stores the 100 guns. Be it, not enough trigger locks, not large enough safe or both.

---

I agree , see my post 58.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

Yeah, that was what i was driving at essentially. You take your chances letting the courts decide whether your storage room is "hard" to break into.

Most hinge pins I've removed can be done with just fingers. Certainly not hard.

---

I would guess the courts would take into consideration, some 'attempt', to 'secure' them , rather than laying on the bed, or standing in the unlocked closet. I would think any lock between someone without a key and the trigger would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The pins do not need to be on the inside, if they need a tool to get into the room (screwdriver) then you have met the requirements.

The safety requirements have nothing to do with theft, they have everything to do with slowing someone unauthorized to access the firearms, mainly kids.

The $5000 gun safes can be broken into with cordless tools, they just take a little less time than a hollow core door.

---

Not sure about what is considered hard to break into but you are correct about this. I could get into any gun safe/vault sold by Cabelas/Bass Pro etc in under 10 minutes and in most cases under 5 minutes and that's without any practice. You would have to drop 30K+ on a UL listed Inkas or better and even than 45 minutes would do it. Short of a bank vault or dropping major coin - easy peasy. This would all be with tools that are on my truck every day of the week. Doesn't matter if the safe is lagged to concrete or even encased in concrete. If it has a door it can be opened and usually a lot easier than most people think. That being said it might cost me a couple diamond blades and/or some acetylene and little work with a pry bar. We regularly cut 7/8 and 1 inch diameter bolts on pipe flanges in literally 15 seconds - 20V commercial cordless grinder with a diamond cutoff wheel. Get to a jobsite and they can't find the key - not a problem, cables, padlocks, hardened bolts - doesn't matter - grinder removes them in seconds. If the battery goes dead or the bolt is too large the 14 inch Stihl takes care of it. Or if I want to save wear on a blade than pre-heat the bolt to 1200F+ and it cuts like butter.

The typical gun safe/vault likely does prevent crimes of opportunity as compared to a typical man door. Drug addict doing a smash and grab could likely open a locked man door but would probably not have the tools for a cheap safe (under 5K). Targeted break in however and you are likely screwed no matter how you are storing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Not sure about what is considered hard to break into but you are correct about this. I could get into any gun safe/vault sold by Cabelas/Bass Pro etc in under 10 minutes and in most cases under 5 minutes and that's without any practice. You would have to drop 30K+ on a UL listed Inkas or better and even than 45 minutes would do it. Short of a bank vault or dropping major coin - easy peasy. This would all be with tools that are on my truck every day of the week. Doesn't matter if the safe is lagged to concrete or even encased in concrete. If it has a door it can be opened and usually a lot easier than most people think. That being said it might cost me a couple diamond blades and/or some acetylene and little work with a pry bar. We regularly cut 7/8 and 1 inch diameter bolts on pipe flanges in literally 15 seconds - 20V commercial cordless grinder with a diamond cutoff wheel. Get to a jobsite and they can't find the key - not a problem, cables, padlocks, hardened bolts - doesn't matter - grinder removes them in seconds. If the battery goes dead or the bolt is too large the 14 inch Stihl takes care of it. Or if I want to save wear on a blade than pre-heat the bolt to 1200F+ and it cuts like butter.

The typical gun safe/vault likely does prevent crimes of opportunity as compared to a typical man door. Drug addict doing a smash and grab could likely open a locked man door but would probably not have the tools for a cheap safe (under 5K). Targeted break in however and you are likely screwed no matter how you are storing them.

---

All correct - which is why out of site out of mind is one of the best practices. Gun safe in the basement bedroom closet is nice and concealed. And no advertising my hobbies with nifty Browning stickers on the truck.