When police enter your house without a warrant

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1
When police enter your house without a warrant

Ever wonder what it feels like to have less rights than a conviceted child molester?  Try being a law-abiding firearm owner.

The police need a warrant to enter your home if you're guilty of any number of henious offensesl but no so if you own 10 hunting rifles.

 

There is some frigntning stuff on this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltncziv8AzQ&feature=player_embedded

Police entering someones home without a warrant. Poilce not even understanding the rules they are trying to enforce (comments about firearm magazines). Polce intimidating a law-abiding citizen. Police basically out on a fishing trip.   They do a great job of profiling him too.  Young single man living in a condo in Toronto, it wasn't mentioned in the video but the man who is asian feels he was profiled because of his race too.

Sean in Ottawa

Really?

This is SUN propaganda. It is clearly an attack on what gun control is left. Yes scary because it might give an indication of what the next target is for the current government. It also exposes for those who have nver watched FOX news north just how far they will go to create a one-sided story to support the pet projects of the Conservative party.

Is there any reason to believe this is not a staged video? SUN has done those before. Certainly interesting that the person would not identify himself. Think about it: it is not fear of the police after all if this video is real the police can look at it and know exactly who he is. Why is his identity hidden then?

I bet the video was taken on a tripod. It sure is nicely centred for a video we are supposed to believe was rushed in place at the last second to record an unnounced visit.

He objects because he is a young person living alone in an urban area who is a frequent purchaser of fire-arms and has more than ten of them in his downtown condo. And he says it is becuase he is Asian? Again. Really?

But SUN wants to suggest that there are no reasons to inspect the safety of a cache of weapons held in a downtown condo. Again. Really? Do you think your rights are violated when your car is inspected? So why not a pile of killing machines being assembled in an urban area?

Naturally, SUN tv only shows the side they are promoting becuase this is NOT journalism. So no, they are not interested in talking to any experts on gun control or anyone else but NRA - North.

So please let us know why you created a thread here for this. Wouldn't this go in the section for crap media? I think most peole have seen this stuff from SUN.

Or are you seriously going along with the story? If so maybe we should have a Bullshit section of Babble to post all the SUN special crap reports in. Should we have a National Enquirer section as well? How about a Conservative propaganda section for those who come here because they don't get enough of that shit in the main stream media - nevermind SUN "news"

6079_Smith_W

It's true, but it is propaganda.

Yes, if you have registered firearms you have to comply when asked for an inspection.They are required to give notice, and as the story said, this fellow ignored those requests.

Why did he refuse? Why when they did show up (on a day's notice) did he not want to take the inspectors to where the gun magazines were?

I don't think it was staged at all; the cops were acting like cops, but even so were making perfect sense. Why shouldn't they be watching someone who tries to evade and refuses to cooperate with a reasonable request - to inspect deadly weapons? The media angle turned that completely on its head.

The fact that SUN News is spinning firearms owners as a special persecuted group is bizarre. How is this any different than having to comply with housing assessment, or inspection for bylaw infractions?

I do know there was a clause in the proposed law that would make it a crime to refuse to comply (as they claimed in the story). I don't know if it made it into the Act, but if it had, one wonders why this gun owner wasn't charged.

And I don't care why Paladin1 chose to post it. It is a fair issue to raise, and I am prepared to discuss it.

 

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What is the issue again, that gun owners with more than ten killing machines are being persecuted. That is not an issue it is stupidity like this thread.

This site is more and more about debating MSM propoganda as serious issues. It used to be a place to go to get away from that very thing. Just had a Maysie sighting in the feminist forum and her posts reminded me why I became addicted to this place originally. 

Slumberjack

It could be argued in a historical context that today's social situation renders gun control initiatives and activities premature at best, and a little suspect as a priority of today's establishment left.  For many, being disarmed seems to matter not one iota when it comes to the violence of the police.  I think back to my reading of Trotskyism and what might have been made possible and/or avoided altogether, if his internationalist approach had been adopted and put into practice in Germany in the 20s and 30s, when the far left was systematically decimated by the FreiKorps, the SA, and the army.  In any normal sense anything that includes the possibility of more violence being piled on top of violence is to be avoided, but the status of 'normal' is an entirely subjective one.

Slumberjack

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Just had a Maysie sighting in the feminist forum and her posts reminded me why I became addicted to this place originally. 

You too?

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It used to be a place to go to get away from that very thing.

I may not agree with the tone of the headline, but I don't see how leaving it unanswered, or saying that it should not be voiced is in any way progressive.

As for the notion that we should all self-police, know this stuff before we even step in the door, and never post anything that might disturb the peace? I'm not all that interested in echo chambers or not paying attention to very real problems. I'd find it kind of boring and pointless, actually.

If anything, I'd say the fact that Sean thought it might be staged is more interesting (and I don't mean that as a slight at all). In fact, technically the story is for the most part correct, and aside from the cop attitude this is one case where the cops did pretty much what they are supposed to do. What is interesting is that SUN News is able to bend it so far out of shape.

 

 

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Is there any reason to believe this is not a staged video?

 

I figured someone would immediately attack the Sun and ignore the video. Truth be told I wouldn't know the difference between the different news groups- I was more concerned with the video. 

Are you suggesting this is staged in so far that the police officers are not really police officers at all and this gentleman wasn't profiled from an online message forum and those "police" didn't enter his house without a warrant?

I realize the police ARE allowed to do this, that's the problem.   How is it acceptable that police need a warrant to enter a child abductors house, search someones computer who's been convicted of child pornograpghy but can search a hunters house without one?

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

What is the issue again, that gun owners with more than ten killing machines are being persecuted. That is not an issue it is stupidity like this thread.

Since automobiles kill 2-3 times as many people per year in Canada than firearms (I can get some stats for you to ignore) do you think that any Canadian owning more than 10 cars should be subject to police searches without a warrant?

 

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 and aside from the cop attitude

 

I'm surprised people aren't more concerned about the cops behavior.  He's clearly trying to intimidate this guy. You could swap out the request about the location of the magazines and put in giving the police your rabble password. If you don't have anything to hide why not give it to them? The fact that you're not means you're suspicious.

 

Maybe I'm just on a different page.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

Why did he refuse? Why when they did show up (on a day's notice) did he not want to take the inspectors to where the gun magazines were?

I don't think it was staged at all; the cops were acting like cops, but even so were making perfect sense. Why shouldn't they be watching someone who tries to evade and refuses to cooperate with a reasonable request - to inspect deadly weapons? The media angle turned that completely on its head.

 

I would say for the same reason you don't have to give your name to the police unless you are being detained (in which case they need to suspect you of something). Police can't randomly going around demanding citizens names.   The same goes for police searching your car without cause, searching your laptop, searching your backpack or cell phone.

The man in the video wasn't officially being suspected of something, they were on a fishing trip.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sun News = Turn on(to ignorance) Tune In (to our network) and drop out (of reality)

Works reeeally good in the US.

But how about the thousands of instances that happen to unarmed 'law abiding' citizens? Didn't think so.

This is a propaganda piece.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1:

It was pretty clear, and correct, in the news piece.

Gun ownership isn't a right in Canada. It is a privilege - one that comes with conditions, such as agreeing to inspections. If you don't want to comply, then don't sign the FAC.

Laptops, backpacks and cell phones are not devices that are restricted in any way. And this was no fishing trip. The owner failed to live up to the agreement he signed by refusing repeated requests to allow access for a search, and when he as asked about missing gun parts he started jerking the police around.

Would you make this same argument about car owners who have been convicted multiple times of driving drunk and finally get their licenses taken away?

To be honest, I think there are specific ways in which this legislation does discriminate against firearms owners. This isn't one of them, and I don't see any reason why this sort of grandstanding by the owner should get any consideration at all. Of course it is gravy to an organization like SUN News.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps. There are ways to stage this some more extreme than others.

Did SUN work with this guy to provoke an investigation in order to make the story?

Clearly he is not cooperating. Is that becuase this was intended to be a story from the start?

Did he refuse to cooperate in order to get the video?

Who wrote the I'm a poor-scared-boy-armed-to-the-teeth-afraid-why-the-government-might-want-to-know-why-I-am-stockpiling -killing-machines-in-the-middle-of-an-urban-area? Was it this guy or SUN news -- and who is he anyway?

Given the reputation of SUN news -- do we know this is not a dramatization-- how do we know this is a authentic video?

And again why won't he identify himself? If the story is true the police already know who he is and going public with his name would help avoid rather than expose him to police abuse. This is not a situation (if true) that hiding his face would hide him from the police. That alone is suspect. If he is fearful and wants his face hidden knowing the police will know it is him -- why do the story?

The targetted for being Asian angle is completely off the wall. Was he targetted to do the story by SUN becuase he was Asian and they could trot that out? Take away the gun and SUN is not particularly friendly to anyone who is not white.

This story is not just biased -- it is clearly political theatre. I have no doubt that the police were expected and the encounter was rehearsed. At minimum.

And the purpose of the story is to go after any remaining laws for gun safety.

The SUN position is you should get to have any gun you want in any quantity and not have to answer to anyone as to why -- you should just have that stockpiled in your bedroom in cardboard boxes without any verifiable safety for locking it up. Was he selling them as black market weapons?

What is the objective of posting this here -- are we asking people here to agree that gun owners freedom should go this far?

How about a thread advocating against stopping people from open carry? Why shouldn't people carry machine guns around downtown if they feel like it? After all that is the Libertarian way. And isn't this the place to advocate for anyone who wants to carry a machine gun to do so?

Sorry I find this thread more offensive than the spam we get on here promoting the NFL.

After all the opening post acknowledges absolutely nothing about this place-- none of the progressive perspective that this place is for. Not one word about women being gunned down. Just the right of a young guy downtown with a pile of weapons wanting the freedom to go about his business until or unless he is done shooting a bunch of people.

If you want to come here with that stuff acknowledge the context in this progressive place.

Not everyone here agreed with the gun registry but a SUN advertisement for everything short of open carry is not why this place is here. Sorry. I am not bothering to be polite. Nothing personal but this topic is bullshit and it is fair to ask why it is here.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin1:

It was pretty clear, and correct, in the news piece.

Gun ownership isn't a right in Canada. It is a privilege - one that comes with conditions, such as agreeing to inspections. If you don't want to comply, then don't sign the FAC.

Laptops, backpacks and cell phones are not devices that are restricted in any way. And this was no fishing trip. The owner failed to live up to the agreement he signed by refusing repeated requests to allow access for a search, and when he as asked about missing gun parts he started jerking the police around.

Would you make this same argument about car owners who have been convicted multiple times of driving drunk and finally get their licenses taken away?

To be honest, I think there are specific ways in which this legislation does discriminate against firearms owners. This isn't one of them, and I don't see any reason why this sort of grandstanding by the owner should get any consideration at all. Of course it is gravy to an organization like SUN News.

 

More I look at this the clearer it is that the police were investigating if he might be a black market arms dealer. A dealer would stockpile, have parts without the whole thing and would not need to have ammo.

The SUN story is to criticize the police for investigating a guy frequently buying weapons. It is ceertainly the first thing I would want to know -- is he selling them to people who could not buy them themselves?

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you want to come here with that stuff acknowledge the context in this progressive place.

Not everyone here agreed with the gun registry but a SUN advertisement for everything short of open carry is not why this place is here. Sorry. I am not bothering to be polite. Nothing personal but this topic is bullshit and it is fair to ask why it is here.

Off topic, I agree with you about the spin on the article, but frankly, given the number of clashes we have in here based on competing, but  legitimate concerns (and sorry, but the police state is a legitimate concern, even if is misused here, IMO) I think it is only appropriate that the bar of what is and isn't allowed needs to be set and kept high. And also given that it is someone who has been here a little while, and isn't just some troll, my personal take is to engage it, even if I strongly disagree.

I sympathize, but to say one is offended isn't really an argument, even if it gets used a lot here. Nor does it deal with the issue that has been tossed on the table.

And I agree with you about the fellow perhaps being a dealer. All the more reason to bring shit like this into the light of day. I would probably never have come across this story had it not been posted here.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I think someone who has been here a while would know the issues with respect to gun violence and could acknowledge them when posting stuff like this from SUN. Even a balanced (and this is a progrssive place not one that is to be balanced between progressive and looney right) introduction would have taken care of that. Or if that is too much -- "I saw this what do you think of this -- discuss". But this one compares the treatment of a person stockpiling weapons with that given a child molestor  -- then it throws out the issue of racism in a way that minimizes issues of racism. The first thing I did was look at the opening poster's history to see what else he posted.

Other than a question on overtime there have only been a couple threads on Terrorism and a single question about overtime

I don't mind the conversation. I do mind the way it was presented and the authority given. Starting a thread with a post supportive of a propaganda set piece from SUN news without any context from a progressive point of viewe is not a way to get a serious conversation going on this site. Maybe that in itself is a worthwhile message.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't mind the conversation. I do mind the way it was presented and the authority given.

Paladin isn't writing from your perspective or mine, but I don't think there was any danger of that being left unanswered. Fact is, we have some pretty strong lines of division on some issues here, and I expect all of us know people posting here whose sources and perspective we strongly disagree with.

Like I said, for me the main thing is I learned something I probably would not have otherwise read - how far SUN News will go, and whom they are willing to work with to craft propaganda. It is a bizarre piece that raises a lot of questions. That is comes from a source that I ultimately consider invalid? Not really an issue for me, and it likely only would be if it were obstructionist.

Not meaning to be obstructionist myself.  I hear what you are saying and I can sympathize; I just disagree that any offense outweighs the value of the issue in this case. So long as we are all being honest here, I like to think there are no stupid questions. And any time the cops act on something, it is always fair to ask why.

Unionist

 

Some "law-abiding gun-owner". I note his face is censored out. What has he got to hide? Law-abiding my ass. Who's he planning to kill with those guns?? As far as I'm concerned, he got off easy.

Sun News of course doesn't ask this question. The so-called "reporter" starts by referring to gun ownership as "another freedom" (see 00:30) - showing how liars and ignoramuses are given free rein to fuck with people's minds, when backed by the billionaire media moguls of the MSM.

Never thought I'd be this proud of our police forces. Thanks for sharing this video! Made my day!!!

Got any more?

Maysie Maysie's picture

If the words "law abiding" are substituted with the word "white" then this article makes perfect sense. 

You're welcome. Tongue out

@krop and SJ: Wink

Maysie Maysie's picture

These links are from the US:

White man jaywalks with gun: guess what happens. (Spoiler alert: nothing!)

Quote:

I saw a white man with a gun.

I heard a policeman saying, "Place the weapon down on the ground, please. ... are crossing the street illegally ... I need you to put the gun down before I talk to you. ... You have committed a crime ... you are jaywalking. ... I don't want to shoot you, I'm not here to do that. ... Why are you so angry. ... Why are you cursing at me?"

Watching the whole incident all I could think of were those dead (unarmed) black men and boys who never had the opportunity to be "talked down," called "sir," and were murdered by police.  

 

Black Panthers and Gun Control

Quote:

The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Maysie.

Absolutely right, which makes it all the more interesting that SUN has exploited that angle - raising the question of potential racist intent - into their story. They are nothing if not adaptable.

Again, I wonder who approached whom with this story. Given that the owner sounded like he knew exactly what he was talking about and how to play the game (and may have put the camera there) there is a fair chance he took it to them.

 

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, I wonder who approached whom with this story.

The National Firearms Association approached Sun News with this "story". Just as they approached Peter Mackay to wear their t-shirt. And just as they intervene on social media and discussion boards and open phoney threads to create provocations. They have lots of money, and their sponsors have lots of guns to sell.

Sorry if this comes as a big surprise to anyone who feels that gun ownership is a matter of fundamental human rights.

 

6079_Smith_W

Good guess, U, and they certainly do enough shit like that. But I wonder. Especially since this fellow was fast enough on his feet that he was able to catch that the cops didn't request that he take them to where the magazines were. It seems a little beyond coaching to me.

There is certainly a story there, and it's a very good one, even if it isn't the one SUN News is trying to spin.

Private dealer who is able to legally part out restricted weapons and magazines ignores repeated inspection reqests, is evasive and combative when asked about missing magazines.

Another aspect of that same story (again, part that SUN doesn't want to cover, except as a civil liberties issue) - that the law now allows triple the size of magazine for some firearms, and the quesiton of whether they are legal or not is grey.

http://globalnews.ca/news/619165/packing-heat-how-gun-law-loopholes-trip...

One question another media outlet might ask is how many of these dealers like this are RCMP watching? How many are refusing inspections?

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Maysie.

Absolutely right, which makes it all the more interesting that SUN has exploited that angle - raising the question of potential racist intent - into their story. They are nothing if not adaptable.

Again, I wonder who approached whom with this story. Given that the owner sounded like he knew exactly what he was talking about and how to play the game (and may have put the camera there) there is a fair chance he took it to them.

Certainly either the man put the camera there ot SUN "news" did.

Absolutely-- and it is not the first time that SUN tries to distort issues of racism to present a racist perspective.

Let's be blunt here-- Gun vendors want policies that minimize regulation and control. They want other policies that allow for so little remaining regulation that they can be end-run through illegal market small time vendors (like what this looks like). They do this because they sell more and are more profitable.

Who get's killed? Well of course it is largely people of colour as well as people with mental illness through suicide and women. When you want to talk about race in the context of guns you have to include the question of who is mostly likely to get killed by guns that are more available because weapons advocates promote lax legislation so that their weapons can sell more. Which communities get devastated? The gated ones where the white NRA types live or where people of colour live? Sure if SUN "news" wants to discuss race there are reasons to go there.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Good guess, U, and they certainly do enough shit like that. But I wonder. Especially since this fellow was fast enough on his feet that he was able to catch that the cops didn't request that he take them to where the magazines were. It seems a little beyond coaching to me.

There is certainly a story there, and it's a very good one, even if it isn't the one SUN News is trying to spin.

Private dealer who is able to legally part out restricted weapons and magazines ignores repeated inspection reqests, is evasive and combative when asked about missing magazines.

Another aspect of that same story (again, part that SUN doesn't want to cover, except as a civil liberties issue) - that the law now allows triple the size of magazine for some firearms, and the quesiton of whether they are legal or not is grey.

http://globalnews.ca/news/619165/packing-heat-how-gun-law-loopholes-trip...

One question another media outlet might ask is how many of these dealers like this are RCMP watching? How many are refusing inspections?

Excellent questions

Paladin1

Smith_w, I appreciate the support, it's always nice to see people willing to debate something even if they don't like the topic or agree.  I posted also expecting a slew of comments geared around 'why are you even here, why don't you leave, rabble isn't right for you (or right enough), you're an agent provaceteur' etc..

 

I agree gun owner ship isn't a right it's a privilage. Something that can, and should, be taken away if it's abused. I believe in CCW permits but I don't belive in open carry permits or people walking around with machineguns.

Ironically, machineguns USED to be readily available for sale in Canada and a legally owned machinegun has never been used to murder someone (except I beleeve for a police officer using one to murder someone but I'd have to check if that was Canadian or US).

 

Ya this guy refused to be inspected as per the rules, fair enough.  That said I'd argue the rules are out of control and overly harsh and intrusive. I'll point out again me as a law abiding gun owner could have my 10+ firearms inspected without warrant but a thrice conviced sex offended is protected from a warrantless search.  

It's a bullshit rule that doesn't save lives.

 

i'm really surprised at some of the comments here. I mean I expect some of them, but I'm still surprised.  If you're not hiding anything then why not consent to a search? Really? I hope for all you're sakes you're just saying that for the sake of argument and wouldn't actually be foolish enough to think that. 

I get ot, something like that is easy to say because you don't believe in private firearm ownership, sure.   What about a different context.   What if you're minding you're own business and walking to the store at 3am.  A cop pulls you over. What's your name? Let me see your ID. Why are you out at 3am?  What's in your backpack let me see, oh you don't want to show me? You're acting suspicious we're going to have to ramp this up a notch. What if the cop wants your email password? Or cell phone password? Don't want to show it? You're obviously hiding something.    It's easy to try and claim it's different because guns=ba and cell phones= not bad but it's the same thing. These rules are in place for a reason.

 

There is nothing illegal about parting out a restricted firearm.  Pur laws are fucked up and based off apeasing gun control advocates and not public safety, I'll demonstrate.

A .22 caliber rifle based on an AR15 (m16) body is restricted, because M16s are black and bad. You need a special permit for it and can only shoot it on a specialized range. It's deadly out to 300 feet maybe, and thats hittin something in the head.

A .50 caliber rifle, a round which is used to penetrate armored personal carries or shoot down enemy airplanes in WW2 is non-restricted. These things shoot, and kill, stuff over a mile away, but you can buy one and go hunting with it on crown land. Here is a picture to highlight the difference.

 

Our whole firearms system needs to be revamped.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That example leds me to conclude that we need way more regulation of firearms and ammo as well.

Sean in Ottawa

Canadian traditional views towards gun ownership -- as well as auto ownership for that matter -- is that we accept the right for inspection and regulation for public safety in exchange for the privelege to have those things.

Nobody forces you to have a gun or over ten guns. But there are conditions in order to keep a safer society of owning those things. And they are regulation and inspection (which is an obvious and necessary part of regulation).

The choice is the insane asylum to the south when it comes to gun laws. You don't have to wonder what would happen if we had no regulation and gun owners could do whatever they wanted in private with their guns -- you just have to look to the US.

And the privacy issue only extends to the firearms themselves. Just like it does to the car in my driveway.

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That example leds me to conclude that we need way more regulation of firearms and ammo as well.

 

Why?

 

Statistically speaking 0 deaths in the last 100 years have been atributed to this non-restricted anti-tank sized bullet and gun.  How many deaths have been caused by the model of car you drive?  Over 0 I bet.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

Ya this guy refused to be inspected as per the rules, fair enough.  That said I'd argue the rules are out of control and overly harsh and intrusive. I'll point out again me as a law abiding gun owner could have my 10+ firearms inspected without warrant but a thrice conviced sex offended is protected from a warrantless search.  

It's a bullshit rule that doesn't save lives.

I don't see anything intrusive or harsh about that rule at all. You can't go forever without having a meter reader on your property either, and I don't see anything wrong with ensuring that firearms are safely stored.

You want intrusive? I have a family member who has to submit to a regular blood test in order to maintain a driver's license in order to ensure epilepsy medication is at safe levels. It's not something that every other Canadian or convicted sex offenders have to put up with? So what? The comparison is completely irrelevant because it is not a criminal issue; it is one of public safety. You don't want to agree to the conditions? Don't get the license.

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Because it has no legitimate purpose for a citizen. We don't as a society need any better reason.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Excuse me while I take a shower.

Some things make me feel that way too, but like I said, I have never considered being offended to be an argument.

And never mind that trolling implies intent, it doesn't work unless someone is getting their chain yanked, and frankly this offering is much too lightweight for that.

The notion that having to deal with inspections makes gun owners a persecuted group unlike any other is beyond a joke; and comparing inspections that many of us agree to with criminal investigations is absurd.

I'm sure plenty of people, from athletes and rail workers, to people on social assistance or dealing with Child and Family Services have few examples of their own of how far authorities can go without a warrant - sometimes justified, sometimes not. As for this, if you don't want inspectors on your property store your firearms somewhere else. Simple.

There are so many holes in this SUN News piece it is ridiculous. It isn't even a serious criticism of Canada's gun laws, which we have had a humber of times in a number of threads. All it is is propaganda for those who want to dismantle the whole system.

On that note, I expect I'll be winding down here as well, because I have given it all the consideration I think it needs.

 

 

 

 

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Because it has no legitimate purpose for a citizen. We don't as a society need any better reason.

 

The same can be said for alcohol, which is stastically two to three times deadlier in Canada. 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Excuse me while I take a shower.

Some things make me feel that way too, but like I said, I have never considered being offended to be an argument.

And never mind that trolling implies intent, it doesn't work unless someone is getting their chain yanked, and frankly this offering is much too lightweight for that.

The notion that having to deal with inspections makes gun owners a persecuted group unlike any other is beyond a joke; and comparing inspections that many of us agree to with criminal investigations is absurd.

I'm sure plenty of people, from athletes and rail workers, to people on social assistance or dealing with Child and Family Services have few examples of their own of how far authorities can go without a warrant - sometimes justified, sometimes not. As for this, if you don't want inspectors on your property store your firearms somewhere else. Simple.

There are so many holes in this SUN News piece it is ridiculous. It isn't even a serious criticism of Canada's gun laws, which we have had a humber of times in a number of threads. All it is is propaganda for those who want to dismantle the whole system.

On that note, I expect I'll be winding down here as well, because I have given it all the consideration I think it needs.

 

 

 

 

 

I still think the home inspection is unacceptable but your posts have made me relook at the article and try to discern intent and if the Sun had some kind of agenda.

 

Inspecting a firearm owners home without cause to me is suggesting that they are intending to break the law.  On the other hand people who HAVE broken the law are protected.

 

Slumberjack

Paladin1 wrote:
 The same can be said for alcohol, which is stastically two to three times deadlier in Canada. 

I know I wouldn't want the Martini police showing up unannounced to see if I'm doing it right.  Sometimes I stir them, but not always with a stir stick, and my notion of an ounce tends to vary.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

Inspecting a firearm owners home without cause to me is suggesting that they are intending to break the law.  On the other hand people who HAVE broken the law are protected.

No; it is a completely different issue. There are plenty of things that are open to regular and spot inspection, from commercial vehicle brakes, to your boat if you happen to be crossing a border where they are checking for mussels.

None of it implies criminal intent or criminal negligence.

As for the assumption that people who have broken the law are protected, it is a completely different matter because, as you say, you haven't broken any laws. Should there only be inspections for safe storage, or anything else if there is presumption of a crime? Good luck getting a new gas line put in for your stove if you insist that the inspector get a warrant to enter your home. For that matter, good luck getting any work done to code on your home. Because guess what? They require inspections too.

And it is not that anyone is "protected", but rather that cops generally have to have a warrant to enter your home on a criminal matter. Keep your guns somewhere else, and you enjoy the same protection as all those pedophiles and dog kickers.

Seems simple to me, and I don't see that I need to explain the difference too many different ways here.

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
No; it is a completely different issue. There are plenty of things that are open to regular and spot inspection, from commercial vehicle brakes, to your boat if you happen to be crossing a border where they are checking for mussels.

These objects would be 'in-use.'  I don't personally know any gun owners who point them out the windows of their home for something to do, at which point it would become obvious that the weapons are in use and are not being handled correctly.  That would be similar to an automobile of questionable serviceability being seen in public, where it would make sense to perform a roadside spot check for the sake of everyone else.  If I have a camper trailer parked in my backyard that hasn't been put to use in awhile, even if the registration is expired they don't show up to ascertain it's condition.  It's when I use it that I should have an up to date registration complete with an inspection sticker.  The amount of carnage a trailer with all kinds of unattended safety issues could inflict on the public is not insignificant.

Bacchus

Slumberjack wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
 The same can be said for alcohol, which is stastically two to three times deadlier in Canada. 

I know I wouldn't want the Martini police showing up unannounced to see if I'm doing it right.  Sometimes I stir them, but not always with a stir stick, and my notion of an ounce tends to vary.

 

Shaken, not stirred SJ. God, you should be raided for that alone ;o)

 

Paladin1

Slumberjack said it much more elogantly than I could.   The examples you gave are of stuff being used. A trailer which is an immediate safety concern and a boat transfering muscles which could have a significant ecological impact.  Trailers and boats aren't inspected when they're at your house.

 

In Canada possessing a firearm is illegal.

The government allows you to break the law for a small (about $260 for a restricted liscence) and allows you to continue breaking the law so long as you reknew your license.  If your license runs out then you're back to being a criminal and facing prison time, fines and your properity being confiscated.     Imagine facing jail time if your drivers license expires.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

Slumberjack said it much more elogantly than I could.

Glad to see that someone else, at least, recognizes that there is a personal liberty issue here, even if it is trumped by public safety in this case.

Boats aren't necessarily "in use" when you haul them across a border, nor does there need to be any suspicion of infraction. You need to pull over and let them have a look at your buckets and bilge. Really, it is hair-splitting, and irrelevant to the issue.

And none of this applies to building code or other inspections at all.

Bottom line is it is perfectly reasonable that government might want to ensure firearms are securely stored, and the notion that it is an unfair imposition is an arrogant, libertarian fantasy. Sorry, the notion that firearms owners should just get to do whatever they want to without showing compliance is NOT something that applies to everyone else, and SUN News spinning this in a defensive way turns reality on its head.

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Boats aren't necessarily "in use" when you haul them across a border, nor does there need to be any suspicion of infraction. You need to pull over and let them have a look at your buckets and bilge. Really, it is hair-splitting, and irrelevant to the issue.

The only way a boat could be considered not in use if you were hauling one, would be if you were not hauling one.  In terms of inpromptu and random checkpoints by the police, where they search every vehicle or wave most through but stop every third or forth vehicle, is also wrong in my estimation.  There is no cause in each and every instance, unless there are glaring safety issues present.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 -- let's look at your analogy. If you are buying and selling alcohol or look like you may be, you better believe that you can be inspected just like when you are in the market buying and selling firearms. There is one difference though: you don't get a warning for alcohol inspections.

Just ask anyone in the restaurant industry how that works.

6079_Smith_W

If I may be allowed a joke, perhaps you mean if you aren't using it for trolling.

If I move from Saskatoon to Calgary I probably have to take my boat with me. Whether I use it or not (which generally entails putting it in water) is immaterial.

Hairsplitting, my dear. Hairsplitting and banter.

If the issue is horrible violations of personal space does it really matter if you are actually using that matress when the tag inspection police knock at the door?

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

In Canada possessing a firearm is illegal.

WHAT???

If we are working from this level of ignorance why are we continuing the discussion?

Paladin1 - No doubt you are a well-meaning person. Please get informed and come back when you have. It will be much more interesting to discuss this with you then.

Bacchus

Well he IS correct if he means posession without a license/permit

 

6079_Smith_W

And I suppose if we want to get technical, the part being inspected - the cabinet, locks and everything else  - is in use while the guns are in storage.

There is a whole other set of rules for safe use.

Sean in Ottawa

Bacchus wrote:

Well he IS correct if he means posession without a license/permit

 

A condition is not the same as prohibition.

It would be like saying posession of a car is illegal in Canada.

Really? Would you make that statement?

Would you say that it is illegal to have a dog in any city that requires a dog license?

 

Bacchus

There are no conditions on car ownership. You can own one without a drivers license. And yes I would say having a dog is ilegal if you do not have a licsnse in a city that requires one for ownership

 

Sean in Ottawa

You can't sell one without a license and you can't use one without a licence in many places you can't even store one.

This guy was apparently selling parts for guns

Unionist

They should lock up that sick fuck and throw away the key.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You can't sell one without a license and you can't use one without a licence in many places you can't even store one.

This guy was apparently selling parts for guns

There is nothing sinister about buying a firearm and selling the parts.  Minus the selling of the actual serialized frame, which requires the buyer to have a license, all the parts on a firearm can be bought online by anyone without a license. They're just parts. The serialized frame is considered 'the firearm' or the part that is tracked.

 

Unionist

C'mon Sean, how about a knock-out punch to the gun advocate? This I gotta see.

 

Pages