PDA

View Full Version : Can police/RCMP search RPal holders house without warrant?



Clinteastwoody
12-04-2014, 05:26 AM
Some individuals at work are saying if you have your Rpal the police or rcmp can search your house without a warrant. Is this true and does anybody have supporting evidence to shut them up or am I wrong in saying no they cant?

Waterloomike
12-04-2014, 05:30 AM
Not according to the law, although they can lie and tell you they can.

The info is on the cssa site.

Doug_M
12-04-2014, 05:44 AM
Don't have the regs at my finger tips but I can hand on heart say it is completely false. PAL or RPAL, the police need a warrant. The CFO (or an official agent of his which may be a police officer) can search the area of your house where your firearms are kept if they give you 24 hours notice. However you can refuse that notice if it is inconvenient. But if you keep refusing then they will get a warrant. If you have 10 or more firearms the rules are a bit different.

Doug_M
12-04-2014, 05:45 AM
Thanks Waterloomike, here is the CSSA page you mentioned: http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/legalinformation.html

Clinteastwoody
12-04-2014, 08:24 AM
Thanks Doug much appreciated answer in less than 20 mins. I refreshed every 2 seconds for 5 mins after the post but gave up shortly after to the newest SOA episode lol props to fast response!

Waterloomike
12-04-2014, 08:31 AM
Get this book. It's the best $105 you'll ever spend.

http://store.lexisnexis.ca/store/images/bstore/ca/product/165x165MU_Brunet_AnnotFirearmsAct1314e.jpg

harbl_the_cat
12-04-2014, 11:41 AM
Bill C-68 has expanded the rights of the police to search. Before C-68, the general reason any police could use to obtain a warrant for entry to your home was by making a sworn statement before a justice that an offense had been committed and that the search was necessary to find evidence. The police could then use this warrant of search and seizure to enter your house and take items that were evidence of an offense.

Bill C-68 changes this substantially. A firearms officer, who is a specially designated police officer, can obtain a warrant to search your home if there is the allegation that ten or more firearms are present. This does not require any allegation of wrong-doing or of a prior offense.

This is a very important distinction and is a tremendous leap in procedure. The mere allegation that you have 11 firearms allows a police officer to search your home with a warrant. The search can be exhaustive and the police may look anywhere a gun could reasonably be hidden. Past examples of warrants searches show that the police will use metal detectors and will open up walls to find out if the metal is a gun or a water pipe. The C-68 warrant is not a warrant of seizure, only of search. But when the police find the slightest items that offends the strict storage laws or the confusing prohibited weapon regulations or any other technical irregularity, they can use that evidence to obtain a warrant of search and seizure to gather the evidence of the offense.

The ability of the police to use this power for fishing expeditions is present and likely will be used. This may be challengeable with application of the Supreme Court decision of R v Feeney of 1997 but the cost and time to do so will be high and beyond the reach of most ordinary sports shooters. The Charter of Rights protects us from unreasonable search and seizure yet C-68 gives license to the police and then leaves it up to the person who has been searched to bring a court action to challenge the search as unreasonable.

What does it matter if they need a warrant if they can cook up any excuse to get one? The law sucks.

Doug_M
12-04-2014, 11:43 AM
What does it matter if they need a warrant if they can cook up any excuse to get one? The law sucks.

Yes, that part is particularly egregious.

blacksmithden
12-04-2014, 12:07 PM
Video tape any and all interactions with the police if you can, and never conscent to a search...politely of course. If they have a warrant, thats a whole different ball game.

Waterloomike
12-04-2014, 01:51 PM
Some individuals at work are saying if you have your Rpal the police or rcmp can search your house without a warrant. Is this true and does anybody have supporting evidence to shut them up or am I wrong in saying no they cant?

Technically, if i understand the law correctly, they need to have witnessed a crime and beleive there is material evidence or a suspect in your house.

But like harbl says, they can just make it up.

If you can make them feel stupid enough, with the letter of the law, they might leave you alone. And it might also just make them more determined to violate you.

If they have a gun and a badge, fundamentally, for the moment, they can do whatever they want, up to and including a cavity search on your lawn.

Kane63
12-04-2014, 01:54 PM
What does it matter if they need a warrant if they can cook up any excuse to get one? The law sucks.

That is exactly why you don't claim you're a collector. There was a somewhat recent OFAH video where Ontario CFO Wyatt told people they didn't need to be members of a club to get a restricted and they could claim collector status. That immediately opens the door to searches.

If you have 10+ registered firearms then you're SOL too.

There is also lying. Like that recent story out of Calgary(?) where the mother in law called the police on her son-in-law (the story/video was put up on here). No warrant required there.

Clinteastwoody
12-04-2014, 05:34 PM
whats with 10+ guns? some law about that too?

Im brushing up on legalities before my first handgun purchase...thanks for the input from all

Gaidheal
12-04-2014, 06:44 PM
I'm hoping my registered count drops significantly soon...

LOL

JRW (QOR)
12-04-2014, 08:37 PM
whats with 10+ guns? some law about that too?

Im brushing up on legalities before my first handgun purchase...thanks for the input from all

Yes, it's in the Firearms Act:

102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may
(a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;
(b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;
(c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and
(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/FullText.html

Clinteastwoody
12-04-2014, 09:24 PM
thats good to know but still dont understand why its 10 why not 5 or 13. Whats it matter to them if you have 10. Are you significantly different if you have 9...whats 1 more do to tip the scales. these laws dont make any practical sense

Gunexpert007
12-04-2014, 10:25 PM
Bill C-68 was designed to discourage firearm ownership in Canada , that is why it makes little sense . The intent of C-68 and the gun reg. was to make things difficult for firearm owners...and many gun owners gave up their firearms all together rather than submit to the licensing , LGR , storage laws , etc....alot of firearms ended up in the smelter when C-68 came into affect....many firearm owners felt it was not worth the intrusion of govt. into their lives , so they gave the firearms up rather than submit....

Doug_M
12-05-2014, 06:41 AM
thats good to know but still dont understand why its 10 why not 5 or 13. Whats it matter to them if you have 10. Are you significantly different if you have 9...whats 1 more do to tip the scales. these laws dont make any practical sense

People have 10 digits (if you count thumbs) and therefore can potentially shoot ten guns at the same time. And that's scary my friend, real scary!

JRW (QOR)
12-05-2014, 09:47 AM
thats good to know but still dont understand why its 10 why not 5 or 13. Whats it matter to them if you have 10. Are you significantly different if you have 9...whats 1 more do to tip the scales. these laws dont make any practical sense

Because Alan Rock used his hands, and couldnt count any higher.

Drache
12-05-2014, 09:55 AM
To obtain a search warrant there is something they need called "Probable Cause". If the police believe they have it, they go to a judge to see if they can get a warrant based upon what they believe is probable cause. If the judge believes they have enough the officers have to swear before the judge that the "evidence of probable cause" they provided is true.

If an officer makes his probable cause up, any evidence found with that warrant becomes null and void.

A search warrant is the first thing a lawyer goes after when defending a client on which a search warrant was used to find evidence to convict their client.

harbl_the_cat
12-05-2014, 10:49 AM
To obtain a search warrant there is something they need called "Probable Cause". If the police believe they have it, they go to a judge to see if they can get a warrant based upon what they believe is probable cause. If the judge believes they have enough the officers have to swear before the judge that the "evidence of probable cause" they provided is true.

If an officer makes his probable cause up, any evidence found with that warrant becomes null and void.

I have a friend who got back his guns after 2 years of court battles and legal ass buckery.

Charges were laid, all were dropped.

If you ask me, even if you're in the right, you're still screwed if they cops come for your guns.

Kane63
12-05-2014, 11:04 AM
I have a friend who got back his guns after 2 years of court battles and legal ass buckery.

Charges were laid, all were dropped.

If you ask me, even if you're in the right, you're still screwed if they cops come for your guns.

I agree, that is the problem with our system right now. Even if you win, you still lose.

Edenchef
12-05-2014, 11:42 PM
Because Alan Rock used his hands, and couldnt count any higher.
Too bad he wasn't wearing sandals.

Cheers!

Gunexpert007
12-05-2014, 11:53 PM
I have a friend who got back his guns after 2 years of court battles and legal ass buckery.

Charges were laid, all were dropped.

If you ask me, even if you're in the right, you're still screwed if they cops come for your guns.

That is what is known as punishment through process . Lay bogus charges knowing that it will cost the firearm owner alot of time , money , and stress to fight the charges in court....

Drache
12-06-2014, 07:43 AM
That is what is known as punishment through process . Lay bogus charges knowing that it will cost the firearm owner alot of time , money , and stress to fight the charges in court....

It can happen. But if an Officer is found to have lied to a judge to obtain a warrant, he at least loses his power to swear for a warrant ever again, not to mention face disciplinary charges, and even criminal charges.

Unlike what some might think, the police are not out to get you just because you are a firearms owner.

Shalimar
12-06-2014, 08:48 AM
Don't have the regs at my finger tips but I can hand on heart say it is completely false. PAL or RPAL, the police need a warrant. The CFO (or an official agent of his which may be a police officer) can search the area of your house where your firearms are kept if they give you 24 hours notice. However you can refuse that notice if it is inconvenient. But if you keep refusing then they will get a warrant. If you have 10 or more firearms the rules are a bit different.

Also note that not just any police officer can inspect.. they must be a "firearms" officer for any such inspection which most are not.

Shalimar
12-06-2014, 08:49 AM
What does it matter if they need a warrant if they can cook up any excuse to get one? The law sucks.

It matters in this case since obtaining a warrant for such an inspection can be fought and you must be given a chance to show why they should NOT get a warrant.. (They hate that)

Shalimar
12-06-2014, 08:52 AM
Bill C-68 was designed to discourage firearm ownership in Canada , that is why it makes little sense . The intent of C-68 and the gun reg. was to make things difficult for firearm owners...and many gun owners gave up their firearms all together rather than submit to the licensing , LGR , storage laws , etc....alot of firearms ended up in the smelter when C-68 came into affect....many firearm owners felt it was not worth the intrusion of govt. into their lives , so they gave the firearms up rather than submit....

There are also millions of unaccounted firearms in Canada and no lack of ppl that simply refused to comply but kept their guns. I've met many of them.

Lee Enfield
12-06-2014, 10:20 AM
There are also millions of unaccounted firearms in Canada and no lack of ppl that simply refused to comply but kept their guns. I've met many of them.

The rcmp/cfc continually changed the number of guns believed to be owned in Canada trying to show compliance with C68. They probably fooled some of the idiots however most knew of owners who never registered theirs and to be honest no one really knows a accurate number of how many guns are in Canada.

Far more are smuggled into Canada than what the authorities are admitting. BC and Quebec are the favourite routes but one area is politically sensitive and the province and federal govt's won't address that situation.

Shalimar
12-06-2014, 10:26 AM
The rcmp/cfc continually changed the number of guns believed to be owned in Canada trying to show compliance with C68. They probably fooled some of the idiots however most knew of owners who never registered theirs and to be honest no one really knows a accurate number of how many guns are in Canada.

Far more are smuggled into Canada than what the authorities are admitting. BC and Quebec are the favourite routes but one area is politically sensitive and the province and federal govt's won't address that situation.


Indeed and even ignoring the smuggled ones.. records of mfr and importing show aprox 15-16 MILLION firearms... yet registration of firearms was merely a tiny fraction of that #..

Gunexpert007
12-06-2014, 10:33 AM
The rcmp/cfc continually changed the number of guns believed to be owned in Canada trying to show compliance with C68. They probably fooled some of the idiots however most knew of owners who never registered theirs and to be honest no one really knows a accurate number of how many guns are in Canada.

Far more are smuggled into Canada than what the authorities are admitting. BC and Quebec are the favourite routes but one area is politically sensitive and the province and federal govt's won't address that situation.

True....just look at the Kanesatake Reserve in Quebec , and the Akwesanse Mohawk Reserve in Ontario.......smuggling is wide open including firearms....but the RCMP are scared to death to set foot on those reserves....so smuggling goes unchecked with a few Tribial Police Officers trying to keep things under control.....

corytrevor
12-06-2014, 11:06 AM
Don't answer the door.

dakaroo
12-06-2014, 11:15 AM
Don't answer the door.

"Dave, Dave's not here!"

RangeBob
12-06-2014, 01:09 PM
It can happen. But if an Officer is found to have lied to a judge to obtain a warrant, he at least loses his power to swear for a warrant ever again, not to mention face disciplinary charges, and even criminal charges.

I thought two things happened:
1) There is no restriction about his ability to swear a warrant or any other oath. But a smart defence attorney may bring up that he lied before in all future cases, if they both bother to look and find it and get that officer on the witness stand, and
2) The officer ends up in the Crown Attorney's office being yelled at for this case, and all the other cases he's ever testified in, because at least one or two of the past cases are going to have grounds for an appeal and someone in jail is getting out -- not only circumventing justice, but the costs for a new trial and the subsequent lawsuit payout.

But I don't really know, and I'm going mostly from what I've watched on Law & Order.

Drache
12-06-2014, 01:21 PM
I thought two things happened:
1) There is no restriction about his ability to swear a warrant or any other oath. But a smart defence attorney may bring up that he lied before in all future cases, if they both bother to look and find it and get that officer on the witness stand, and
2) The officer ends up in the Crown Attorney's office being yelled at for this case, and all the other cases he's ever testified in, because at least one or two of the past cases are going to have grounds for an appeal and someone in jail is getting out -- not only circumventing justice, but the costs for a new trial and the subsequent lawsuit payout.

But I don't really know, and I'm going mostly from what I've watched on Law & Order.

There are some judges who aren't going to care, but there are many who if word got out of an officer lying to get a search warrant, would refuse to sign one from the Officer again.

The second is a real possibility as well. All those cases would be open for appeal.

Shalimar
12-06-2014, 01:26 PM
There are some judges who aren't going to care, but there are many who if word got out of an officer lying to get a search warrant, would refuse to sign one from the Officer again.

The second is a real possibility as well. All those cases would be open for appeal.

Sadly those that do so fail to realize this is why they are to be held to a higher standard.. and the volume of harm they cause within their bad actions regardless of their motivation.. again all the more reason why the good ones need to step up.

Lee Enfield
12-06-2014, 02:17 PM
True....just look at the Kanesatake Reserve in Quebec , and the Akwesanse Mohawk Reserve in Ontario.......smuggling is wide open including firearms....but the RCMP are scared to death to set foot on those reserves....so smuggling goes unchecked with a few Tribial Police Officers trying to keep things under control.....

I neglected to mention Ontario, and the authorities are scared spitless to deal with either of the problem areas in Ontario and Quebec.

Shalimar
12-06-2014, 05:29 PM
I neglected to mention Ontario, and the authorities are scared spitless to deal with either of the problem areas in Ontario and Quebec.

Indeed... one of which is only a short drive from me and the OPP pathetically did SFA of value when there was a bigger incident.

Waterloomike
12-06-2014, 06:08 PM
Indeed... one of which is only a short drive from me and the OPP pathetically did SFA of value when there was a bigger incident.

Caledonia? Dudley George? There's a pretty long list of choices. Incompetence and eunuchism is pervasive in government.

Shalimar
12-07-2014, 08:21 AM
Caledonia? Dudley George? There's a pretty long list of choices. Incompetence and eunuchism is pervasive in government.

Caledonia. Infamous for the incident(s) there and the OPP twiddling their thumbs.

CF_Smith
12-09-2014, 04:51 PM
So here's my spin on this, my household has three PAL holders in it, none of us have 10 firearms, but collectively we far surpass that number. What do you think, does that make us collectively subject to search?

corytrevor
12-09-2014, 08:29 PM
Well since they only know you own restricteds now with the LGR gone, as long as none of you individually owns 10+ restricted, I wouldn't worry.

Shalimar
12-10-2014, 08:10 AM
So here's my spin on this, my household has three PAL holders in it, none of us have 10 firearms, but collectively we far surpass that number. What do you think, does that make us collectively subject to search?

Legally no that does not work as "collectively" since it's not about the total # in a dwelling as per the FA's wording. But I wouldn't put it past them to try such BS so once again knowing your rights in advance and the actual law is of great benefit.

Edenchef
12-10-2014, 04:51 PM
Just remember, almost everything (90%) coming from their mouth is a lie. No paperwork, no entry and repeat as needed...."let's just wait till my lawyer gets here". A body cam or neighbor with a video could help too. JMHO

Cheers!

Shalimar
12-10-2014, 05:23 PM
Just remember, almost everything (90%) coming from their mouth is a lie. No paperwork, no entry and repeat as needed...."let's just wait till my lawyer gets here". A body cam or neighbor with a video could help too. JMHO

Cheers!


That and knowing the law is hands down your best bet.. and even if you think you have nothing to hide etc etc.. ALWAYS.. make them work for it including obtaining a warrant and your fighting such a warrant.. since that makes their "job" (which is pointless BS) much harder and the more of you that act less like sheeple the better off we all are in the end.