Firearms used at Rideau Hall Identifed

This is really rather troubling.....the RCMP still haven't released what weapons used in the mass murder in Nova Scotia and it's been months. Yet...3 days (weekend) after this last incidence, we know the make on model of all the guns that were used in the Rideau Hall incursion.

It needs to be explained why the RCMP are withholding that information in regards to the weapons used in Nova Scotia from the public.

According to information sworn by an RCMP officer, Hurren allegedly had the following loaded firearms with him:

An M14 rifle.
A Hi-Standard revolver, a restricted firearm for which Hurren allegedly did not have a licence.
A Lakefield Mossberg shotgun.
A Dominion Arms Grizzly shotgun.

Hurren also allegedly had a prohibited high-capacity magazine.

So do you suppose it was an actual M14 or did they mix it up with a Mini-14?

RCMP don’t have a good track record when it comes to firearms. Scary for us that they have so much control over them.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

This is really rather troubling.....the RCMP still haven't released what weapons used in the mass murder in Nova Scotia and it's been months. Yet...3 days (weekend) after this last incidence, we know the make on model of all the guns that were used in the Rideau Hall incursion.

It needs to be explained why the RCMP are withholding that information in regards to the weapons used in Nova Scotia from the public.

According to information sworn by an RCMP officer, Hurren allegedly had the following loaded firearms with him:

An M14 rifle.
A Hi-Standard revolver, a restricted firearm for which Hurren allegedly did not have a licence.
A Lakefield Mossberg shotgun.
A Dominion Arms Grizzly shotgun.

Hurren also allegedly had a prohibited high-capacity magazine.

---

I'm not hearing much as to whether he had regular licensing to acquire these firearms, or if they were acquired on the strength of his military background or gotten through the illegal firearm trade.
There didn't appear to be any information as to what gave him the right to acquire these gun, and there didn't appear to be any charges as to unauthorized possession. Have I missed something?

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

Can tell you there’s no acquiring “firearms on the bases of your military background”.

Same rules as everyone else.

He was with the rangers so there service weapon is a 303 rifle. Not exactly high tech even if he walked with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Rangers are using a Tikka T3 CTR bolt action rifle (designated C19) now in a 7.62 NATO ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saskfly

Can tell you there’s no acquiring “firearms on the bases of your military background”.

Same rules as everyone else.

He was with the rangers so there service weapon is a 303 rifle. Not exactly high tech even if he walked with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Weren't the Rangers supposed to be up graded to Sako .308 or was that some other Rangers? However, what you seem to be saying is this guy must have either a PAL possibly RPAL or has pick them from an illegal vendor.

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

yea a bit confusing:

Quote:

---

The new prototype rifle, the C-19, was designed by Finland’s Sako, based on its Tikka T3 CTR model. Manufacturing will be done by Colt Canada.

---

As a Ranger..he may be authorized to keep possession of his rifle 24/7..but according to the list it wasn't with him.

huh do you even need to ask why the NS shooting info isnt available? Trudeau will have pie all over his face since he used that incident as a springboard for his new ban. Those were illegally obtained firearms, it contravenes his MO.

This "ranger" was in possession of mostly legally procured firearms so it seems. They released all the info right away to make legal gun owners look bad once again and further their MO. Not even a shot fired just a "scare". Probably setup by the liberals somehow lol.

Its all part of the Liberal narrative cant you see that....the RCMP just does what their told - their words exactly when I asked them their opinion on the gun ban a few weeks ago.

QUOTE..Deer Wrastler " huh do you even need to ask why the NS shooting info isnt available? Trudeau will have pie all over his face since he used that incident as a springboard for his new ban. Those were illegally obtained firearms, it contravenes his MO. "

That AND...if they release the list of the guns used in N.S. , we'll know that Billy Blair was lying when he said were on the OIC list...

Billy Blair lying.,.,THAT is a given !!!!!!

Whatever firearms he had in his possession isn't the real issue. Here we have an individual whose troubles were well known among many people,yet,he was still able to possess those firearms. We need to determine why no one reported after he made his intentions known on social media,how the licensing system failed. At this point,there's no indication he intended an assassination attempt against any political figure (despite the brayings of the usual leftist suspects). Somehow,it appears he was a very screwed up individual surrounded by enablers.

QUOTE...trimmer21.... "Somehow,it appears he was a very screwed up individual surrounded by enablers."

and the RCMP who never 'disabled' him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

QUOTE...trimmer21.... "Somehow,it appears he was a very screwed up individual surrounded by enablers."

and the RCMP who never 'disabled' him.

---

In all fairness,we know the RCMP aren't mind readers. The "system" won't work unless someone takes the initiative to advise them someone with firearms has come unglued enough to threaten something or someone. Having said that,though,the suspect lives in a very small town. Most of the time,local Police know what's going on with the local folks.

They were told, repeatedly, he had guns....they knew he wasn't licensed...yet the never investigated.

" A former neighbour of the gunman behind last month's mass shooting in Nova Scotia says she reported his domestic violence and cache of firearms to the RCMP years ago and ended up leaving the community herself due to fears of his violence."

No the RCMP really are deeply responsible in this tragedy...they should have diffused this years ago.

totally agree...someone at RCMP needs to be made an example out of, someone needs to fall for this.

We don't need "someone at the RCMP" to be made an example of, we need the person/people at the RCMP who recieved these reports and failed to act on them to be held responsible.
We, law-abiding gun owners, are "being made an example of" because someone dropped the ball with the N.S. RCMP. That doesn't work or solve any problems.
John

Some need to think about themselves if you have a neighbor out to make life miserable and call the police on you and tell them you have guns and are a violent person. It doesn't give the police a right to come in your house and take your guns over a phone call. The police cant come and take your booze away because you might drink and drive. Be careful what you ask for, not saying this guy didnt have problems, but theres many times when a neighbor or even a spouse call the cops and report a person to have guns and being unstable. Police need to investigate first before they confiscate your property, not all reports to police are truthful. Police cant predict the future, and we do have our Charter rights. Nut cases are just that your never going to know if or when they snap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Some need to think about themselves if you have a neighbor out to make life miserable and call the police on you and tell them you have guns and are a violent person. It doesn't give the police a right to come in your house and take your guns over a phone call.

---

It does if the RCMP checks their own data base and it shows he's doesn't have a PAL or RPAL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

It does if the RCMP checks their own data base and it shows he's doesn't have a PAL or RPAL...

---

I dont disagree completely but let play devil's advocate here, let's say your neighbout just want to be an a hole and call the cops saying they have seen guns in you house and their scared. And let's say in this scenario you do not have a RPAL or PAL, would you appreciate the cops ( RCMP, OPP, local police) to come in a look around and potentially look everywhere in your house because you neighbour's are pissed you have a party and went later than they wanted ( even if it is within the bylaws regualtions) or you cur you lawn yearly for the late sleeper next door. I 1000% agree someone dropped the ball somewhere but as a liscense gun owner i dont want someone to make a call and now i have to deal with the cops.

And just an FYI (not gun or arms related or domestic issues) but my wife and I have had to deal with cops showing up and I did not agree with how we were treated, was it just 1 a hole cop with a chip on his shoulder, or is cops have to deal with to many ppl make false accusations and they are "sick" of dealing with it. We had a BS call that we were beating our child and she was not being properly taken care of. 10pm at night cops show up she opened door ( I was at the store not far away) and coped pushed himself into the house, even though my wife asked to wait outside until I got home since it was all male personel ( 2 cops showed up, as well as 2 paramedics) she said she would wait with door open and standing there incase the daughter woke up until I got home. Cop didn't even care and pushed her out of the way and started looking aroun, including our fridge and kitchen to make sure there was food, as well we had to wake our daughter up and take her pajamas off to make sure she had no evidence of abuse and even then. We had to go to the hospital because whoever called said she was worried cause she said she was gonna hurt herself.

So to be honest phone calls unfortunately need to be taken with a grain of salt but should not be dismissed completely. Where do you draw the line of abuse of power and following protocol? I have a brother been RCMP for 10 years, well as a brother in law graduating tomorrow from depot (RCMP training in regina) so even with law enforcement "in the family" I have a hard time with this issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnjyb

We don't need "someone at the RCMP" to be made an example of, we need the person/people at the RCMP who recieved these reports and failed to act on them to be held responsible.
We, law-abiding gun owners, are "being made an example of" because someone dropped the ball with the N.S. RCMP. That doesn't work or solve any problems.
John

---

Yea held responsible as in how, a paid "reprimanded" time off or transfer to a different department? thats b.s, heads need to roll. They dropped multiple balls and now they nor the provincial or federal government are giving answers? smells like theres lots to cover up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

It does if the RCMP checks their own data base and it shows he's doesn't have a PAL or RPAL...

---

I agree, but where's the proof he has firearms based on a neighbors phone call? If every phone call allowed the police to enter peoples homes anybody could have their guns taken away from a single phone call that may have zero truth.
I'm not defending the shooter in the least, but if just one phone call from bitter spouse or arsehole neighbors can allow your property to be taken think how many guns could be confiscated from law abiding citizens.

Police can't legally enter your house based only on a single phone call.
No JP would sign off on a warrant without more info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

They were told, repeatedly, he had guns....they knew he wasn't licensed...yet the never investigated.

" A former neighbour of the gunman behind last month's mass shooting in Nova Scotia says she reported his domestic violence and cache of firearms to the RCMP years ago and ended up leaving the community herself due to fears of his violence."

No the RCMP really are deeply responsible in this tragedy...they should have diffused this years ago.

---

We must take care not to lump these cases together. Each one is different on it's own merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Some need to think about themselves if you have a neighbor out to make life miserable and call the police on you and tell them you have guns and are a violent person. It doesn't give the police a right to come in your house and take your guns over a phone call. The police cant come and take your booze away because you might drink and drive. Be careful what you ask for, not saying this guy didnt have problems, but theres many times when a neighbor or even a spouse call the cops and report a person to have guns and being unstable. Police need to investigate first before they confiscate your property, not all reports to police are truthful. Police cant predict the future, and we do have our Charter rights. Nut cases are just that your never going to know if or when they snap.

---

While that's absolutely true,that doesn't seem to be the case here. This subject "telegraphed" plenty of warning through social media,but,no one reported. We need to know why because without timely information,the system simply can't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Police can't legally enter your house based only on a single phone call.
No JP would sign off on a warrant without more info.

---

"Exigent circumstances" alleging abuse in a domestic complaint doesn't require a warrant. Failing to act on a serious complaint,whether or not it's from a single phone call could be deemed as "dereliction of duty." Once an occurrence is generated,a dispatched Constable doesn't have the luxury of discretion whether to answer or not. The system kicks in a everything must be followed to the letter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

"Exigent circumstances" alleging abuse in a domestic complaint doesn't require a warrant. Failing to act on a serious complaint,whether or not it's from a single phone call could be deemed as "dereliction of duty." Once an occurrence is generated,a dispatched Constable doesn't have the luxury of discretion whether to answer or not. The system kicks in a everything must be followed to the letter.

---

Where is a 'like' button when you need it HaHa..

Love how keyboard lawyers pipe up a soon as they 'think' their rights are being violated.

Anyone who considered themselves to be threatened by your possession of a Firearm, can make a complaint to the RCMP and may result in having your PAL/RPAL revolked.

From the Firearms act:

Quote:

---

Investigation

(2) Without restricting the scope of the inquiries that may be made with respect to an application for a licence, a chief firearms officer may conduct an investigation of the applicant, which may consist of interviews with neighbours, community workers, social workers, individuals who work or live with the applicant, spouse or common-law partner, former spouse or former common-law partner, dependants or whomever in the opinion of the chief firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant is eligible under section 5 to hold a licence.

---

You agreed to that when you signed your application form...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Anyone who considered themselves to be threatened by your possession of a Firearm, can make a complaint to the RCMP and may result in having your PAL/RPAL revolked..

---

It's amazing how many folks out there forget that, or are ignorant of the fact, that police can and will bust your door in, seize your firearms and ammunition, if they suspect you may be a danger, based simply on the erroneous complaint of a vengeful neighbour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

It's amazing how many folks out there forget that, or are ignorant of the fact, that police can and will bust your door in, seize your firearms and ammunition, if they suspect you may be a danger, based simply on the erroneous complaint of a vengeful neighbour.

---

Like the recent narrative of the white dog owner being asked in the park to put her dog on its leash by a dark bird watcher who was attempting to take pictures of birds, which the unleashed dog kept frightening off. She call the police on the dark guy saying he was making unwanted advance on her, in order .to get him in trouble. However some cell phone footage iced that complain, and she was finally charged with making false accusations..

I’m not sure if it was a firearm matter, if the situation could be so easily be turned about like that.

You stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

They still do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Police can't legally enter your house based only on a single phone call.
No JP would sign off on a warrant without more info.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

It's amazing how many folks out there forget that, or are ignorant of the fact, that police can and will bust your door in, seize your firearms and ammunition, if they suspect you may be a danger, based simply on the erroneous complaint of a vengeful neighbour.

---

I think you will find that in matters of domestic abuse or firearms related offences, police will err on the side of caution, and sort out the details after any possible threats or offences have been eliminated....CYA !! Obviously the RCMP dropped the ball !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

QUOTE..Deer Wrastler " huh do you even need to ask why the NS shooting info isnt available? Trudeau will have pie all over his face since he used that incident as a springboard for his new ban. Those were illegally obtained firearms, it contravenes his MO. "

That AND...if they release the list of the guns used in N.S. , we'll know that Billy Blair was lying when he said were on the OIC list...

---

I bet he was not lying, the M4 Carbine that the RCMP have been issued would have been on his list or firearms used, after he killed that police officer and took it from her car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I bet he was not lying, the M4 Carbine that the RCMP have been issued would have been on his list or firearms used, after he killed that police officer and took it from her car.

---

The way it is has been going, we will never know, that information seems to have been redacted from the public...which is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

The way it is has been going, we will never know, that information seems to have been redacted from the public...which is the problem.

---

They said 1 of the guns was on the OIC and declined to say which one and how it was acquired, no doubt this is the RCMP carbine.

It is all politics, the RCMP is a political organization that is tailored to the party that appoints the people at the top, simple as that. The RCMP officers are not what I mean by the RCMP by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I bet he was not lying, the M4 Carbine that the RCMP have been issued would have been on his list or firearms used, after he killed that police officer and took it from her car.

---

You may be missing the point , that actually does not give any reason for the gun to be banned....he actually acquired it illegally(killing an officer is highly illegal,right?).What that he used it later ,has to do with having reason for banning the gun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

You may be missing the point , that actually does not give any reason for the gun to be banned....he actually acquired it illegally(killing an officer is highly illegal,right?).What that he used it later ,has to do with having reason for banning the gun?

---

I am fully aware of that, but there is a good possibility that they were not lying when they said one of the guns was listed in the OIC.

You are missing the point, they used the fact that he stole a gun and used it to commit a crime to further their anti-gun agenda, that was the point I was bringing across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I am fully aware of that, but there is a good possibility that they were not lying when they said one of the guns was listed in the OIC.

You are missing the point, they used the fact that he stole a gun and used it to commit a crime to further their anti-gun agenda, that was the point I was bringing across.

---

Have we finally arrived at that point, that we need to have an investigation to ensure that the actual investigation is not being embellished to suit some government agenda on gun control.Why are we being put in such a position? What a sick SOB of a country we’ve become.
Just accept the fact that any gun control legislation imaginable is not likely to prevent anyone from shooting someone if they take it into their head to do so. Shelve the ridiculous notion of gun control, for all the good it has done. In fact it has done nothing for public safety and more to create division and foster levels of distrust through out this nation. Meanwhile we sit on our pompous and point the finger at our neighbors to the south for their ineptitude when it comes to guns. I really have to wonder how mush sleep is being lost by those attempting to come up with some type of foolproof legislation that will prevent individuals from shooting one and other..


You don’t stop hunting because we grow old. We grow old because we have stop hunting.
- Gun Nut.