High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[brihard]

You might be surprised. I'd say that roughly 10% of my gun club membership is active or retired LEOs.

Oh, I know plenty are. I just think a majority are not.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You might be surprised. I'd say that roughly 10% of my gun club membership is active or retired LEOs.

Hmmm. No doubt, but that just adds to the mystery. IIRC, most abuses of police PAL stops appear to be mostly on the west coast. I seldom see reports of cops abusing firearms owners, because of lack of knowledge of the laws, from other areas of the country.

 

[Haggis]

Oh, I know plenty are. I just think a majority are not.

My club is primarly handgun users. I know a lot of LEOs who hunt who aren't club members. Long gun laws are pretty simple once you take the time to understand the nuances of storage and transportation. Restricted are not.

I got stopped about 6 or so years ago during my birth month right after pulling out of the gun club. Cop asked if I had any firearms in the car. I said "You saw me pull out of the range." "So, yes" he says. "Properly secured, unloaded and in the trunks" says I. "Good" he says,"I'm not worried about those, just the people with them under the front seat." I'd been stopped to ensure my registration was up to date as I hadn't yet put my new sticker on the plate. We had an amicable chat and a few months later he was sitting in a new member class.

 

[lenaitch]

An announcement that raises more questions than it answers, and no doubt a bunch of defence lawyers are now looking for a copy to impugn police officers in Sault Ste Marie.

Message from the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service - Sault Ste. Marie Police Service

Message from the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service - A modern police service for a safer tomorrow.

saultpolice.ca

Edit: local news article that spurred the announcement.

Leaked police recording offers 'a slice of the culture,' researcher says

'Those guys are untouchable': Recording of a comedy roast obtained by a researcher contains audio of police cracking jokes about sexual harassment, trumped-up charges and destroying evidence

www.sootoday.com

From the article quoting the source:

Disciplinary measures for the officers involved in the recording depend on whether the representations being made are embellishments and jokes, D'Orazio said, or if they are based on facts and reality.

"Based on what I heard, I think some of the comments tend towards the latter," he said.

Let's hear it for the rigours of research. I suspect this is one 'post doctoral fellow, public interest researcher and freelance journalist' who won't get a lot of phone calls returned in the future.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Imagine if a CAF member illegally brought their personal weapon into a secure zone at work. Certainly that would warrant significant punishment - especially if they were, say, a MWO in the military police, NCIU, aircraft security officer. Right?

Anderson J.A.J. (Master Warrant Officer), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.

decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca

Thats and interesting one.

For these reasons, the court:

[38] Directs that MWO Anderson be discharged absolutely from the offence.

[39] orderS, pursuant to section 147.1 of the NDA that MWO Anderson is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for a period beginning on the day this order his made and ending on 31 May 2029.

[40] IN ACCORDANCE with section 147.3 of the NDA, every item prohibited by this order in the possession of the offender, on the commencement of the order, is forfeited to His Majesty to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with, as the Minister directs. The offender is ordered, within seven days to deliver to an officer or non-commissioned member appointed under the regulations for the purpose of section 156 of the NDA, all things that the possession of which is prohibited by the order, together with every authorization, licence and registration certificates relating thereto and held by the offender on the commencement of the order.

[41] IN ACCORDANCE with subsection 147.1(3) of the NDA, this order does not prohibit the offender from processing any things, including firearm necessary for his duties as member of the CAF.

Does this mean the MWO had to surrender his personal firearms or bow weapons to the CAF ?

 

[brihard]

Thats and interesting one.



Does this mean the MWO had to surrender his personal firearms or bow weapons to the CAF ?

Basically yeah. The military justice system can issue functionally the same firearms prohibition orders on conviction as a civilian court, including an order of forfeiture.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Basically yeah. The military justice system can issue functionally the same firearms prohibition orders on conviction as a civilian court, including an order of forfeiture.

I honestly didn't know the CAF could do that. I appreciate the learning!

Will the member get them back after 31 May '29 ?

 

[brihard]

I honestly didn't know the CAF could do that. I appreciate the learning!

Will the member get them back after 31 May '29 ?

I believe no. The equivalent crim code sections applicable in sentencing are 114 and 115. As a result of a conviction for which there’s a weapons prohibition, basically too bad, your stuff’s gone. Now that said I’m not a SME on this and I cannot say if there’s any provision for transfer of lawful ownership.

 

[Haggis]

I believe no. The equivalent crim code sections applicable in sentencing are 114 and 115. As a result of a conviction for which there’s a weapons prohibition, basically too bad, your stuff’s gone. Now that said I’m not a SME on this and I cannot say if there’s any provision for transfer of lawful ownership.

You are correct. The items are forfeit to the Crown and would be ordered destroyed. (115(2)). In the case of his handgun, transfer of ownership to another individual would already be prohibited unless the receiving person meets one of the exemptions of the Firearms Act 97.1.

 

[brihard]

You are correct. The items are forfeit to the Crown and would be ordered destroyed. (115(2)). In the case of his handgun, transfer of ownership to another individual would already be prohibited unless the receiving person meets one of the exemptions of the Firearms Act 97.1.

There might also be a distinction there between the handgun as offence related property, and other firearms that are not offence related.

I did a search warrant not too long ago where we simultaneously did a criminal code 487 search for a couple specific offence related firearms as criminal evidence, but also a 117.04 public safety warrant for the remainder of the subject’s firearms that are not criminal evidence but that we have grounds to believe he should not have for safety reasons. There’s different subsequent handling and administration for both categories.

Any offence related firearms are almost certainly gone gone with no way to recoup value. There are mechanisms for the disposition of firearms seized for public safety that can include transfer of ownership- but that’s not a product of sentencing, so I’m straying a bit.