I don’t believe the police on the gun forums have an understanding of how police contracts and deployments work, I disagree- my uniformed, know nothing more than you guys thoughts:
Hypothetically, RCMP reservists are like 60 years old. The reservist recruitment process is way behind, super slow, and unless they recruited a bunch of new police for this that isn’t possible. They would have to suspend the recruitment of reservists to meet our contract needs to bring this up to speed to exclusively work on this. Also- the contract divisions are following their contract partners, the provinces, leads on this- we Are contracted by a province and take our leads from the province (on the contract side) the only folks available to do this are the federal officers. And if we turn the limited resources in federal towards this- we may as well break the force in two because contract will not survive the federal left hand doing something while the contract right hand says “that’s not technically us”
And again, hypothetically the risk assessment doesn’t allow for it. The association isn’t going to allow senior citizens to go door to door collecting guns against the owners will without the appropriate risk mitigation, which doesn’t exist with the capacity to do what’s being suggested. I also don’t believe incident commanders are going to bring that to bear on people because they shouldn’t be interested in potentially shooting someone over a regulatory thing. Even if it’s suddenly become criminal. It’s not a necessary, risk effective, accountable action that would be accepted by the public,
The rcmp is then also on the hook for the litigation, coming from a provincial pot for these actions- Unless using the federal officers only. And there will be an immediate overwhelming of the complaint process and the civil process by the owners, and the courts as we account for all the seizures.
In a municipal or provincial contract, only so many officers are allowed to pulled into these larger federal actions without activating a bunch of processes that send provinces into a rage. We have to account for it, the province would have to accept reduced public safety to dedicate to this- while dealing with the community leadership calling for their heads.
Also, municipal agencies control their secondary employment or where they can work. If they haven’t signed on- they aren’t going to accept the liability, the complaints, the leeching of their resources to man the gun turn-in box.
Could I be wrong? absolutely. On everything, But the machinery as is doesn’t jive with this idea at present and I haven’t seen anything telegraphed that it’s changing soon.
I’m still on watch and shoot. I don’t understand how all this is resolved over the next few months. It looks like we re in a bit of a corner for all parties involved which makes it hard to really solve something,
Say someone gets hurt the first few weeks in a province that gets really gung ho on it- we don’t have any idea what will happen after that. And that could be different still if everything went smoothly for a bit and it emboldened the people driving this.
It so wide and unknown that it’s hard to make even WAGs on it, I still suspect it’ll be pressure applied elsewhere like taxes or passports something to place adjacent pressure on the homes that are noncompliant.
www.abc15.com
