• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

RCMP MEMBER CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENCES IN CALGARY

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
622
Points
910
Should not anyone using a civilian range have to comply with extant regulations for civilians? It seems inappropriate for police to bring duty (prohibited ?) weapons to a civilian range, doesn’t it?
A condition of my club's licence allows police officers, peace officer, public officers and public agents to use prohibited firearms for lawful activities. No distinction is noted on the licence for on or off-duty.
 

Booter

New Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
35
Points
330
On Sept. 8, 2021, a member of the Strathmore RCMP Detachment was charged with a criminal offence for an off-duty incident that resulted in a police investigation by the Calgary Police Service.

The charge resulted from an incident that took place on Aug. 25, 2021. While off-duty, Cst. Blaine Taylor attended a public shooting range located in Calgary. Cst. Taylor had in his possession a number of firearms, including RCMP issued firearms, that were used at the shooting range. Complaints were passed along to the Chief Firearms Officer, National Weapons Enforcement Team, and the Calgary Police Service - who launched an investigation.

Following an investigation, the officer was charged with Possession of a Firearm While Unauthorized, Possession of a Prohibited Firearm and Possession of a Prohibited Device (over capacity magazine). Cst. Taylor, who has been a member of the RCMP for 13 years, was released on an Undertaking with conditions to attend Calgary Provincial Court on Oct. 19, 2021.

He is currently suspended from duty with pay. Once the criminal charges have been resolved, his duty status will again be reviewed.

As this matter is now before the courts, the Alberta RCMP is unable to provide further information.

The media release doesn’t say the prohib charge is for the duty weapon. It says it’s for the incident where a series of firearms were present- as well as duty weapons.

So the prohib things don’t have to be related to service and then there is no exemption for being a public officer.

If he had been subject to prohib orders there would be other charges there- I would suggest.
 

RedFive

Jr. Member
Reaction score
59
Points
380
I have second hand knowledge of what took place here, and, because it's second hand won't spread rumours. However, if what I have been told is true, there is A LOT more to the story, and this Member is in deep shit for good reason. The details will come out, one way or another, eventually.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,466
Points
940
If the Libs get their way, almost every gun owner in Canada will be in possession of a prohibited device.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
880
Including all the hunters and farmers who said "the new laws don't apply to me, so I don't care". Too late now.
It will be interesting to see the fudds wail in protest when their Lee Enfields are suddenly prohibited and they realize the Libs are no friends to any firearms owner.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
480
It is about like saying Pte Snuggles from the 31st Bucktooth Fusiliers can sign their C7 out of stores on the weekend for range practice.

Goose/Gander, and all….
If DND allowed it they could and it would be legal. The Firearms Act doesn't apply to the Canadian Forces, all they would have to do is provide permission for soldiers to do so. Personally I don't think it is a bad idea at all, the Swiss take home their service arms and keep them at their homes full time without issue, if we are unable to do the same then we clearly can't trust those soldiers with firearms and they should be discharged.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
898
Points
860
If DND allowed it they could and it would be legal. The Firearms Act doesn't apply to the Canadian Forces, all they would have to do is provide permission for soldiers to do so. Personally I don't think it is a bad idea at all, the Swiss take home their service arms and keep them at their homes full time without issue, if we are unable to do the same then we clearly can't trust those soldiers with firearms and they should be discharged.
To what end?

I’ve seen enough troops do stupid things without supervision or control that the potential fallout isn’t worth it. Yes a few people can ruin it for everyone. Want proof? Look at the fall out over the airborne regiment and the current sexual misconduct issues plaguing the CAF. This has potential to be exponentially worse. Plus with all the mental health issues we are dealing with I’m not sure this is a good idea. And how many weapons and mags would get “lost”. The paperwork to deal with this would be stupid. And people expect LEOs to have firearms in public. They are used to it. They are likely less inclined to be comfortable to know soldiers have prohibited weapons in their homes.

I would be ok if a troop signed out a weapon for his own range time. Pick it up, go to the range, shoot all they want then return to the vault. No reason to bring it home.

Unless we have an immediate need and we don’t, we shouldn’t just do it “because”.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
334
Points
1,130
, the Swiss take home their service arms and keep them at their homes full time without issue,
Without ammunition, either.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
418
Points
1,030
If DND allowed it they could and it would be legal. The Firearms Act doesn't apply to the Canadian Forces, all they would have to do is provide permission for soldiers to do so. Personally I don't think it is a bad idea at all, the Swiss take home their service arms and keep them at their homes full time without issue, if we are unable to do the same then we clearly can't trust those soldiers with firearms and they should be discharged.

There are some who even the Swiss shouldn't trust.

Swiss army lost 70 firearms in 2020​

The firearms – including assault rifles and pistols – went missing last year, the army confirmed on Tuesday.

January 12, 2021 - 13:36

Army guns disappear every year. According to the newspaper Blick, 70 army weapons were reported missing last year, including 57 assault rifles. Of these, 54 were stolen and one was destroyed in a house fire. The remaining 15 weapons could no longer be found. Army spokesman Stefan Hofer confirmed Monday’s report to the Swiss news agency Keystone-SDA.

Between 1969-2021, a total of 5,519 army weapons were reported missing – 418 were later recovered.

Last year 22 lost weapons reappeared, with the vast majority being returned to the army by the police, who found them during operations. The rest were handed in by civilians.

The 2020 figure was lower than recent years, which had witnessed a steadily growing trend: 69 missing in 2016, 85 in 2017, 107 in 2018 and 102 in 2019.

In 2017, the army launched an awareness-raising campaign on the subject of lost weapons.

The loss of a weapon has consequences of varying severity for members of the army. These can range from disciplinary punishment to three years imprisonment.

Tradition
All able-bodied Swiss men must do military service and have the option of storing their army rifle or other weapons at home. This is a long-standing tradition for the Swiss army, which is supposed to be ready for a call to arms in times of crisis.

The army rifle must be kept in a burglar-proof location and any theft must be reported immediately, but missing weapons are usually only reported when the soldier goes on military exercise or when he leaves the army and can’t find his gun.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, because of its militia army. The defence ministry estimates that over two million guns are in private hands, for a population of 8.6 million.

And to reach back in time for an example that would undoubtedly be resurrected in opposition to such a proposal for the CAF, my former neighbour Denis Lortie.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
If DND allowed it they could and it would be legal. The Firearms Act doesn't apply to the Canadian Forces, all they would have to do is provide permission for soldiers to do so. Personally I don't think it is a bad idea at all, the Swiss take home their service arms and keep them at their homes full time without issue, if we are unable to do the same then we clearly can't trust those soldiers with firearms and they should be discharged.

Misleading to say it does not apply. It does not apply when on duty. When off duty, it does.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
622
Points
910
If DND allowed it they could and it would be legal. The Firearms Act doesn't apply to the Canadian Forces, all they would have to do is provide permission for soldiers to do so. Personally I don't think it is a bad idea at all, the Swiss take home their service arms and keep them at their homes full time without issue, if we are unable to do the same then we clearly can't trust those soldiers with firearms and they should be discharged.
Several "gun lobby" groups filed a Federal Court request for an injunction against the May 1st, 2020 "assault-style firearm" OIC, which was heard by Associate Chief Justice Jocelyn Gagné. One of their arguments is that the OIC impacts the ability for LEO and CAF members to practice on their own time with their own AR-style firearms. The Crown contended that the LEAs and CAF already provided what their agencies believed to be ample on-duty practice and qualification opportunities to meet their legally defensible competency requirements. The Judge agreed - end of that argument.

Until there is a post-OIC officer-involved shooting in Canada where an inquest calls into question the competency of that officer and their agency's qualification standards, we are stuck with what we have. We can argue until we are blue in the face that LEOs and CAF members need more practice but it will fall on deaf ears. Training costs money.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,164
Points
1,060
Want proof? Look at the fall out over the airborne regiment
Would me keeping a C7 at home, beside my personal semi-auto rifle that looks a heck of a lot like a C8, make me bait African children with food and water then torture them to death if I catch them? I kind of feel like the Airborne Regiment debacle is a little more than "troops being dumb".
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
898
Points
860
It’s a
Would me keeping a C7 at home, beside my personal semi-auto rifle that looks a heck of a lot like a C8, make me bait African children with food and water then torture them to death if I catch them? I kind of feel like the Airborne Regiment debacle is a little more than "troops being dumb".
It’s an example of the few ruining it for the many. That was my point. So if some dumbass sells his rifle on eBay and claims it was lost or a guy decides to hold up a bank with his issued firearm, then yes, you will get painted with the same brush by the public.

Again, to what end do we need troops to bring their rifles home.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,164
Points
1,060
It’s an example of the few ruining it for the many.
I get what you're saying but I think the Airborne had bigger issues than a few people. I think it can be a bit of a Canadian godwin anytime something negative about the CAF pops up.

Again, to what end do we need troops to bring their rifles home.
None.

With that in mind lots of Canadians own guns that can put a softball or basketball sized hole in another human. And there's a couple thousand automatic firearms in private citizen hands if I'm not mistaken. Those of course aren't the issue so soldiers keeping rifles at home isn't that much of a boogyman IMO.


Some of us have an impression that police play fast and loose with some of these rules.
Probably also some beliefs that they aren't held all that accountable.

Bit of a different ending over the citizen that spent years fighting the courts when thieves took 3 days to burn into a safe to steal firearms.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
334
Points
1,130
With that in mind lots of Canadians own guns that can put a softball or basketball sized hole in another human.
In those cases, I do not believe the government - taxpayers - ussually get sued.

But, if a government issue take-home weapon was used to blow a hole in someone, would the government - taxpayers - face financial liability?

I understand if the shooting was considered justified, or not justified, it would make a difference.

Probably a question a lawyer could answer.

Again, to what end do we need troops to bring their rifles home.

Jarnhamar said:

(y)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,466
Points
940
Several "gun lobby" groups filed a Federal Court request for an injunction against the May 1st, 2020 "assault-style firearm" OIC, which was heard by Associate Chief Justice Jocelyn Gagné. One of their arguments is that the OIC impacts the ability for LEO and CAF members to practice on their own time with their own AR-style firearms. The Crown contended that the LEAs and CAF already provided what their agencies believed to be ample on-duty practice and qualification opportunities to meet their legally defensible competency requirements. The Judge agreed - end of that argument.

Until there is a post-OIC officer-involved shooting in Canada where an inquest calls into question the competency of that officer and their agency's qualification standards, we are stuck with what we have. We can argue until we are blue in the face that LEOs and CAF members need more practice but it will fall on deaf ears. Training costs money.
The Sheriffs out here changed their range qualifications to every 18 months. I took him shooting with me to a IPSC related "Skills and drills" night, firing around 300rds each. He said it's more shooting he did in one night than 4 years as a Sheriff (50 rds a year). Toss in the horrible triggers they had on the 5946! They recently went to M&P so he bought his own to practice with.
 
Top