RCMP officer's gun stolen at mall | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

RCMP officer's gun stolen at mall

J_F said:
write up says the gun etc were in a satchel
QPly2hq.jpg


maybe after work the officer went to the mall
had the satchel with them containing gun radio, clips etc

another assumption is that all these stolen guns are from car break ins
so they have to keep the weapon with them, in a satchel

what is unusual is the 2+ hour time frame of the theft
if the satchel was with the officer
you would think it doesn't take 2 hours to notice it gone

so the officer either left the satchel in the car
or they were watching a movie
or just really stupid and didn't notice for 2+ hours it was gone

this reminds me of reddit where the membership actually solve crimes
GTAM is going to solve the issue of a stupid RCMP officer
Click to expand...

RCMP cannot carry thier duty firearm while off duty, unless they have been granted a special permit (CCWj to do so. They are subject to the same rules as us ordinary folks who own restricted firearms while off duty. So this story has a lot of questions that have to be answered. Sadly we will not hear those answers as they tend to cover thier own *****.
 
bigguy1 said:
RCMP cannot carry thier duty firearm while off duty, unless they have been granted a special permit (CCWj to do so.
Click to expand...

AFAIK there is only two (current) CCWs issued in Canada, so that pretty much rules him/her out.
 
raginduck said:
Nonsense.

A ban will do nothing to curb the gun violence... absolutely nothing! It will have absolutely no affect on the flow of illegal guns.. and will be nothing more than a joke to the thugs they're trying to target with the ban... even more than it is to law abiding folks with half a clue.
It's stupid idea...

A ban would have also done absolutely nothing to stop this situation. The RCMP cop would have been exempt.. and the thief wouldn't have given the ban a second of thought.
Click to expand...

I get it, you're a gun nut. Can we at least agree to ban black guns?
 
The tragedy is that young lives are being lost and everyone from Tory to Trudeau just throw out sound bites.

Legal gun owners are an easy target, no pun intended, so its easier for a politician to take their guns away and claim that they have achieved something. Legal gun ownership is much more pervasive out west but yet they don’t seem to have the same issues.

I feel that politicians just don’t want to tackle the difficult problem of guns and gangs. I personally believe many of them see it as a “victimless crime” as the actual victims tend to live on the edges of society. It’s not impacting their friends and family, or their base of support.

I spent some time at Rogers early in my Career and did some work for Tory. He can’t make a decision to save his life so it doesn’t surprise me that this mess exists in Toronto. Of course it’s not all down to him, and it’s not an easy problem to solve, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

Anyway, just my $0.02.
 
bigguy1 said:
RCMP cannot carry thier duty firearm while off duty, unless they have been granted a special permit (CCWj to do so.
Click to expand...

^This is patently false.
There are all sorts of circumstances when/where a police officer may have possession of their duty weapon(s) while not actually "on duty".
 
Last edited:
Hack said:
^This is patently false.
There are all sorts of circumstances when/where a police officer may have possession of their duty weapon(s) while not actually "on duty".
Click to expand...

Cite your sources. I'm pretty sure they have to follow the same "directly to and from" rules that everyone else does.
 
Hack said:
^This is patently false.
There are all sorts of circumstances when/where a police officer may have possession of their duty weapon(s) while not actually "on duty".
Click to expand...

From everything I’ve read there are no circumstances to when any law enforcement officer can carry thier duty firearm while not actually on duty. To do so would be breaking the law. Unless they have a CCW. If you have an example I’d like to see hear/see it.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Cite your sources. I'm pretty sure they have to follow the same "directly to and from" rules that everyone else does.
Click to expand...


No they do not. You're confused as to whom the FA applies.
The FA does not apply to LEOs with regards to duty weapon(s)... I bet you didn't know that duty weapons aren't even "registered" with the CFC.

You can look up "sources" yourself.

Start with the actual Firearms Act,
In particular SOR/98-209 2(1)

Afterwards read up the Police Services Act..
 
Hack said:
No they do not. You're confused as to whom the FA applies.
The FA does not apply to LEOs with regards to duty weapon(s)... I bet you didn't know that duty weapons aren't even "registered" with the CFC.

You can look up "sources" yourself.

Start with the actual Firearms Act,
In particular SOR/98-209 2(1)

Afterwards read up the Police Services Act..
Click to expand...

It doesn’t apply while on the job, there is an excemtion. Same as a brinks guard. It does apply while off duty. This includes thier duty firearm.
 
I'm not sure a Brinks guard and an RCMP officer are working under the same regulation.
 
Canadian illegal gun control starts south of the border. There isn't much Tory or Ford can do and it will take a war down there to change anything.
 
bigguy1 said:
It doesn’t apply while on the job, there is an excemtion. Same as a brinks guard. It does apply while off duty. This includes thier duty firearm.
Click to expand...

I give up.
Unless you're being deliberately obtuse...

The Brinks reference is completely irrelevant...
 
bigguy1 said:
It doesn’t apply while on the job, there is an excemtion. Same as a brinks guard. It does apply while off duty. This includes thier duty firearm.
Click to expand...

If you are making this garbage up to look like a "wheel" sorry, big time fail, if someone is feeding you this trash, check your source, they are not doing you any favors. If you choose to reply to my post please quote the legal exemptions you base your silly comments on.
 
MRR11.6 said:
If you are making this garbage up to look like a "wheel" sorry, big time fail, if someone is feeding you this trash, check your source, they are not doing you any favors. If you choose to reply to my post please quote the legal exemptions you base your silly comments on.
Click to expand...

I’m not making anything up, or doing anything to look like a “wheel” to be honest I don’t even know what that means. The legal excemtion is in the firearms act. Law enforcement and even armed guards can carry a restricted firearm as it is part of thier job. Once they punch out, they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

So if you feel you know better, and perhaps you do, please show me where it says law enforcement officers are above the law? I know the RCMP tried to change this law after the shooting in NewBrunswick a couple years ago. The courts said no.


Here is a start for you

Section 90 of the criminal code

Then section 98 of the firearms act and work your way down.
 
Last edited:
crankcall said:
I'm not sure a Brinks guard and an RCMP officer are working under the same regulation.
Click to expand...

When it comes to carrying a restricted firearm they actually are. I’m in no way saying they have the same powers, but the Refs that allow them both to carry is the same.
 
When it comes to the guns on our streets straw buying is a huge problem. Latest reports indicate that 40% of the guns seized on the streets of Toronto were legally purchased in Canada and then found their way into the black market. Supply vs demand, the large supply means availability is up, costs are down in the black market, means even the lowest level thugs these days are well armed.

For the guns that come from Canada:
  • Some were improperly secured by legal owners and were stolen, somewhat like in this case...
  • Most are straw purchased "legally" IN CANADA, modified and serial numbers removed. Includes restricted and non-restricted that get modified to meet the criminals needs.
In both cases, in theory, banning legal purchases will have a significant impact on the supply in just a few years (it will draw down the 40%). Do I agree with this approach, NO, but to say it will have no impact is to say you do not understand what is going on these days.

The supply from the US will always be a problem, but it is not like the old days when it was 90+ percent of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom