The Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP is sending investigators to High River, Alta. as it looks into complaints that Mounties
illegally seized firearms during June flooding there, QMI Agency has learned.
“Commission investigators will be in High River from December 9th to 13th to speak to persons who may have been impacted,” said Richard Evans, the commission’s senior director of operations, in an email to Sun Media.
The commission is conducting an “expedited” investigation after irate citizens spoke out at a public meeting over the summer, complaining about Mounties taking away rifles and shotguns after bursting into flood-abandoned homes to conduct searches.
Evans says anyone who wants to speak to investigators should call 1-800-267-6637 or send an email to reviews@cpc-cpp.gc.ca.
h/t syncrodox
Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country’s defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one — English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act.
We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen’s their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals.
Why is the High River constabulary acting in a ‘high handed’ manner or are they afraid of their own citizens?
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Why doesn’t High River fire the RCMP and get their own police, sort of a de-Nazification?
Dec 9th Fly in from Ottawa investigators not yet ready to interview community members, message call back tomorrow.
Dec 10th, stenographer not cleared, unable to conduct interviews, message come in on Dec 11th.
Dec 11 return to Ottawa.
3 months later report conclusion reached,citing extensive input from High River citizens.
Probably the same ones who supposedly delivered their own guns and ammo to the RCMP for safe keeping.
One person, somewhere in the RCMP hierarchy, made the decision, and gave the order to enter private homes, and remove property. I will consider the investigation successful when we have the name of that person known publicly.
The investigation is just window dressing and theatrics. No need for it at all. The only question that needs to be answered is:
WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO SEIZE THE FIREARMS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
(yes, I’m shouting)
Who gave the order indeed. On what grounds? Many folks will speak up here, this isn’t over…
Don’t know what they’re complaining about, my property was confiscated to give to people who willingly live in a flood zone.
And I don’t get my property back. Where’s the inquiry into that?
But will it answer why Cumberland House (the First Nations res) wasn’t searched?
I suspect some low level flunkie will be the sacrificial goat in this sham.
The bigger coverup may be that the incident was a tactical experiment more than a serve and protect police action.
I’m thinking of what went down in Boston.
And yes,it may be a bridge to far in reasoning ,but there is this pervasive smell about this affair that isn’t going away.
Anywhere the federal RCMP act as provincial police sooner or later, they will execute the priority of the Federal Firearms Act, which is civilian disarmament.
Simple, peaceful, possession of a firearm is Right under Common-Law and was so recognized in Canada until the passage of C-68(1995) by the Liberal government of Jean Chretien.
Retaining this law is party policy of the Liberal Party, the NDP and the (Harper) Conservatives(re-affirmed at their recent Calgary Convention).
Unless a province passes a Constitutional Amendment(yes, Virginia there is a provincial constitution) providing a Constitutional Right to Hunt, and therefore the Right to the means to do so, namely firearms, the pogroms/raids will continue.
A government may regulate or violate a right or a privilege. The difference is that it is required to be reasonable(Oakes Test) when violating a Right, there is no obligation to be reasonable when violating a privilege.
The most this Commission investigation will due is see that the RCMP raids return to one house at a time, as has been going on for 13 years, instead of raiding an entire town at once, because that is simply too obvious what the federal agenda is.
A government only makes something a criminal offence, (the simple, peaceful possession of a firearm as the Cdn. Firearms Act does), it wishes to prohibit and suppress.
The P.A.L. or federal possession licence is only a method of keeping track formally of who and where, they will raid when the opportunity or excuse arises.
Remember, if you hold a federal Possession and Acquisition Licence (P.A.L.) and within 30 days of changing residence, you have not notified the federal firearms system, you have committed a criminal offense.
Note a person convicted of robbery, maiming and manslaughter after serving his brief sentence (2-6 years usually) has no similar obligation, because he’s no longer(presumably) breaking any law.
However, the P.A.L. means you are still breaking the law for possessing a firearm, only that the P.A.L. is a temporary permit to do so.
The full (real) truth will never come out because I don’t believe they have the power to drag anyone into court. I suspect that the decision at the end of this process will be that, “unknown people in a position of authority acted inappropriately but the commission does not have the mandate to determine who or why.”
No one has ever explained why the RCMP only did this to High River, when homes in Calgary, Exshaw, Canmore, Bragg Creek, Hidden Valley were also flooded and police never knocked down their doors.
Nothing wrong with having a hunting bow. If everyone in the neighborhood had one…
This will go no where fast, as the socialist political broom sweeps it away.
After all the police don’t care about communities. They are Government workers who’s Union makes the rules.
The Political class goon squad
The RCMP and sycophants have tried to pretend that the Alberta Emergency Management Act gave them the authority. However, as with all laws, it is the INTENT of that law which overrides, regardless of what the actual words might say. That is why Hansard is often used in court cases….to get at the INTENT.
And here is an excerpt from Hansard in that regard.
March 14, 2012 Alberta Hansard 509
Mr. Jacobs:
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Some of my constituents feel that powers granted to a local authority during a local state of emergency can be abused. What assurances can you give them that they will not be abused?”
Mr. Griffiths:
“Mr. Speaker, I know from the hoots and hollers before that some of the members from the wild alliance indicate that this is about property rights. This is not about property rights. This is an issue where local municipal officials, local firefighters, local police officers, and local paramedics are trying to save lives. There is compensation provided in the rare necessary circumstance when property must be commandeered, but I can’t think of a single Albertan that wouldn’t want a vehicle commandeered if it meant saving their grandmother from a burning building. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.” (my emphasis)
So you see, the INTENT of the law was to commandeer assets that might be used to combat the emergency itself. NOT to steal private property.
My right doesn’t come from the Common Law or the Bill of Rights or any law. Those laws are are about government recognising, acknowledging, admitting that my right is my right because it is my right.
cops are a law unto themselves
just a little more so now than yesterday
and tomorrow we will see what socialism (full blown communism) really is
There was an article at National Newswatch a couple months ago that stated the RCMP Sergeant in charge of the High River detachment acted completely on his own judgement, with no political consultation or direction.
I find it hard to believe, but….
The article was only on there the one day,and no follow up at all.
This Commission will probably disappoint everyone but the terminally naive when it completely whitewashes the actions of the Staatspolizei.
Well Strad, I feel your pain old trout about the confiscation of your personal property. I have had my stuff stolen for 40 years to support Quebec, bilingualism, injuns, the liberal party, corrupt government lawyers, foreign aid to countries I could care less about, the UN, welfare riff-raff, assorted other lowlifes in society and a boatload of other annoying things.
Sometime life just isn’t fair, eh?
Hans; you forgot section 26 of The Charter as well:
“26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”
This says that the Common Law applies in Canada.
How Bill C68 violates The Charter:
http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/charterViolations.htm
As well, read section 24. “24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
So it’s up to those in High River whose Charter Rights have been violated to take action through the courts.
Those of us unaffected can do nothing until it’s our ox that’s been gored.
Heh, I think you might be missing the point…these people seem to have a double standard, complaining about confiscation while taking confiscated wealth.
It’s all a theatrical exercise to calm the sheeple – unless there are charges laid against those who issued and obeyed illegal/unconstitutional orders – that’s what it’s all about folks – we are seeing a police function that boldly operates outside its authority and in contravention of law and constitutional propriety. Nowhere is this more eveident than the decades – long purge police have run against lawful firearms ownership and self defense.
The pattern of demonization, politically correct persecution, followed by abusive enforcement and vindictive prosecution of those who exercise the right to own firearms or defend their life and property from criminal attack is well established in this nation. The Malicious enforcement and abusive prosecution of clear cut cases of justified self defense or non criminal firearms possession in this nation, under the guise of public safety stands as our greatest hypocrisy and darkest disgrace. Within the police function, legislative bodies and judiciary resides a networking political cabal focused at using law enforcement errantly to enforce police state engineering and anti-civil rights agendas. In this case, realizing defacto civilian disarmament through unreasonable legal liability and harassing/provoking enforcement.
Even the former soviet Russia and its eastern block nations, where government claimed a monopoly on the use of force of arms, were not this openly predatory and uncivil in matters of personal possession of sporting arms or self defense. What has gone off the rails with justice and police in this nation to have come to this – breaking into secured homes to confiscate private property, arresting the victims of violent attack for physically resisting criminal attack, arresting, legally terrorizing and financially ruining honest citizens for petty firearms regulatory infractions? We are acting like a malefic police state in the matter of these most basic personal and human rights – that of the right to private property, security of the home and self preservation.
I would like to say this is the result of the inherent moral and ethical chaos of politically correct dogma infecting our police function and justice system, but I fear it is something far more malevolent and odious driving this corruption of the police function and justice system – something foreign to our heritage of free society and civil rights under constitutional rule of law – something which sees free empowered citizens as a threat to total control and governmental class domination.
Well put, Occam, but if those affected do not take the action they are allowed to under The Charter, then the next Judge may rule that Canadians have given up those Rights. Same as the legal result of Police Roadblocks to prevent DUI. No one objected until it was a done deal.