• 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

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,793
Points
1,090
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.
Why not create a system where you have designated weekends where the range is staffed, troops could then "rent" their rifles from their vault (Have it transfered from their vault to the range) and have NATO ammo available at a certain price charged to the member either at cost or for a small profit. RSO's are present, troops get additional training if needed, and if you charge a little extra, DND can make a few bucks to reinvest in range maintenance.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
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.
Before your skills and drills session, did your friend usuallly pass his qualification every 18 months? Or did he end up on agency conducted remedial training until he was successful?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,932
Points
1,160
He passed but barely. The guy teaching these sessions is a great instructor and really helps each shooter. Quite a few of the CBSA types who fail come to his sessions to improve their skills. Depending on the skill level present and and if is familiar with everyone, he make the session more dynamic than the fundamentals.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
He passed but barely. The guy teaching these sessions is a great instructor and really helps each shooter. Quite a few of the CBSA types who fail come to his sessions to improve their skills. Depending on the skill level present and and if is familiar with everyone, he make the session more dynamic than the fundamentals.
That's the key to the Crown's argument. Your friend, and all other LEOs get sufficient training for them to pass their qualifications without the need for them to own scary black rifles or, eventually (wait for it) handguns.

Unless you live in an area where there are no CBSA approved ranges for those BSOs to practice with their duty firearms, (and, yes, they are allowed to and encouraged to do so) there is no reason why they should have to seek out a private, for-profit service provider to improve their skills. I hope the sessions he runs are conducted with their duty firearms and not rental/loaner guns.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,304
Points
1,140
That's the key to the Crown's argument. Your friend, and all other LEOs get sufficient training for them to pass their qualifications without the need for them to own scary black rifles or, eventually (wait for it) handguns.
Some Quals by a lot of entities are downright appalling. The argument should have been coached along with the descriptions of the qual - and the fact that the lowest common denominator shouldn't be what people strive for - especially those entrusted to carry weapons by the government for their jobs.
Unless you live in an area where there are no CBSA approved ranges for those BSOs to practice with their duty firearms, (and, yes, they are allowed to and encouraged to do so) there is no reason why they should have to seek out a private, for-profit service provider to improve their skills. I hope the sessions he runs are conducted with their duty firearms and not rental/loaner guns.
I find it very odd these days that the Canadian Government doesn't allow its LEO's to carry off duty.
Of course I've had years of freedom to come to that conclusion ;)
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
965
Points
1,060
I find it very odd these days that the Canadian Government doesn't allow its LEO's to carry off duty.
Of course I've had years of freedom to come to that conclusion ;)
Depends on the department Kev. My local PD is authorized off duty carry.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,264
Points
1,110
Depends on the department Kev. My local PD is authorized off duty carry.
Got a source for that? It’s a subject that comes up in the policing community from time to time and nobody has ever mentioned that in any of the discussions I’ve seen. It sounds extremely unlikely that any police service would accept that risk in anything but extreme cases such as a member having been threatened. I’m not sure how it would be legal without a duty nexus.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
688
Points
810
Depends on the department Kev. My local PD is authorized off duty carry.

Not unless they are on call and required to respond for duty immediately for a specific function.

Which isn’t exactly the same as “off duty carry”.

It’s not impossible that someone is completely out of step with the rest of the country, but it’s very improbable because their training would be linked regionally or to a larger municipality.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,932
Points
1,160
Got a source for that? It’s a subject that comes up in the policing community from time to time and nobody has ever mentioned that in any of the discussions I’ve seen. It sounds extremely unlikely that any police service would accept that risk in anything but extreme cases such as a member having been threatened. I’m not sure how it would be legal without a duty nexus.
They can under this section, almost as rare as Hen's teeth though

PART 1Circumstances in Which an Individual Needs Restricted Firearms or Prohibited Handguns for the Purpose of Section 20 of the Act

Protection of Life

2 For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

  • (a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
  • (b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
  • (c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
688
Points
810
While I see what you’re going for there-

It’s not a question of legality, there’s a few ways to carry a gun while not “on duty” (all linked to a function). It’s liability.

Until we know the town or city- it’s a misunderstanding of a function or semantics. It’s an urban legend in Canada in law enforcement.

“I’m heading to Walmart on my days off and I’m not on call and have no expectation to get called out, I’ll just grab my keys and my gun” off duty carry doesn’t exist for Canadian police officers. I had to have a gun safe in my trunk installed for when I was off duty and subject to recall anywhere at anytime.

I will gladly reach out to any training section in Canada and report back and admit I’m wrong and a dinosaur if we produce an agency here (and apologize)

I’d fall out of my chair that I never came across them or their agency. I’m actually interested in being wrong here.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,264
Points
1,110
They can under this section, almost as rare as Hen's teeth though

PART 1Circumstances in Which an Individual Needs Restricted Firearms or Prohibited Handguns for the Purpose of Section 20 of the Act

Protection of Life

2 For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

  • (a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
  • (b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
  • (c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm

Yeah, I’m aware of that ATC provision. There would need to be a very real, credible and specific threat to that individual’s life. It’s generalization at al to “cops can carry off duty”. Also note that it depends on that person having a firearms license for the firearm in question. Police are issued and carry firearms outside of the licensing system for individuals- I.e., you don’t need a firearms license of any class to be a police officer.

I’ve never personally heard of a case of that ‘danger to life’ authorization being granted. I’m aware that they have existed, but To the best of my knowledge they’re very nearly unheard of.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
I’ve never personally heard of a case of that ‘danger to life’ authorization being granted. I’m aware that they have existed, but To the best of my knowledge they’re very nearly unheard of.
During the debates around Bill C-71, where it was wildly claimed by gun control advocates and certain Liberals that there were roving gangs of ATC holders in the streets Canada, renowned firearms policy researcher Dennis R. Young ( R.I.P.) queried the CFP via an ATI request on this subject. The answer was that there was one person in Canada at that time who held a "protection of life" ATC. There was, of course, rampant speculation of who it could be. I recall seeing another report about 10 or 15 years ago that there were just over 600 persons with such an ATC. The Liberal's Bill C-21 would have made an almost impossible document even harder to obtain.

I know, train and compete with LEOs from dozens of agencies. Except for the circumstances described by Booter, I have never met a Canadian LEO who routinely carries off-duty.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,304
Points
1,140
Got a source for that? It’s a subject that comes up in the policing community from time to time and nobody has ever mentioned that in any of the discussions I’ve seen. It sounds extremely unlikely that any police service would accept that risk in anything but extreme cases such as a member having been threatened. I’m not sure how it would be legal without a duty nexus.
This is were I totally don't get the attitude/mindset.

You are the exact same person you are when wearing the uniform.
There is ZERO additional risk.

I know several entities that mandate off duty carry - as you are a sworn officer 100% of the time.
*Take Home Cars are also very common in many states.


Ask yourself this:
IS the Officer entrusted with a weapon and vehicle on solo patrol during their shift?

If the answer is yes, then there is zero additional risk.
If the answer is no, unless the officer is riding with a training officer, then they probably should not be in that job field?
** Yes I understand a lot of places have dual patrol policies - but that's for officer safety - not because the lack of trust in officers.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Some Quals by a lot of entities are downright appalling. The argument should have been coached along with the descriptions of the qual - and the fact that the lowest common denominator shouldn't be what people strive for - especially those entrusted to carry weapons by the government for their jobs.
Kev, haven't seen you on here in quite a while. Welcome back.

We can all agree that more training is better and that higher standards save lives. But the bean counters and lawyers don't see it that way. They look at probability outcomes (i.e. how much risk can we tolerate given the historical likelihood of an OIS occurring in our agency) versus training costs in time and money.

I've been the lead in the development of a new course of fire for a segment of our agency's training. The level of organizational and legal scrutiny that this has gone through so far is staggering.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,190
Points
1,040
^ I knew two, both because of past deep UC work. Permission from on-high for off-duty carry of an issued weapon - not as a grounds for a permit to carry an owned weapon.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,190
Points
1,040
This is were I totally don't get the attitude/mindset.

You are the exact same person you are when wearing the uniform.
There is ZERO additional risk.

I know several entities that mandate off duty carry - as you are a sworn officer 100% of the time.
*Take Home Cars are also very common in many states.


Ask yourself this:
IS the Officer entrusted with a weapon and vehicle on solo patrol during their shift?

If the answer is yes, then there is zero additional risk.
If the answer is no, unless the officer is riding with a training officer, then they probably should not be in that job field?
** Yes I understand a lot of places have dual patrol policies - but that's for officer safety - not because the lack of trust in officers.

Different attitudes towards firearms among different nations. I might have been the same person 24/7 but I didn't have the full spectrum of responsibilities when off duty. If I'm walking the dog and see something that I would have typically been dispatched to, I have no legal obligation - particularly if it took me onto private property. As well, part of the additional rik is the lack of comms , GPS, etc.; you are now another dude with a weapon at the scene. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that one of the reasons so-called 'raid jackets' and other identifiers for plain clothes members became popular in the US was to stop them from shooting each other.

One issue, not only for off-duty but also for plain clothes members, at least in Ontario, is the legal and policy view that one must carry the full use-of-force spectrum (baton, spray, sidearm, etc.) that is approved by the department for uniformed members. Risk averse departments don't want to create a policy that approves only firearms.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
433
Points
810
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”.
Why does everything have to be controlled to the Nth degree? Maybe the issues we are facing is due to the fact we don't trust our troops and refuse to treat them like responsible adults? If there is such a large lack of trust in any particular individual that we can't trust them with a weapon, with or without supervision then what are they doing in the Profession of Arms? The paperwork doesn't have to be stupid even though the CAF would likely make it so because we are such a risk adverse hidebound organization which is afraid to take any potential risks.

I am not saying we should or shouldn't do it, simply that as per the example I quoted in the first place it could be done fairly easily if the CAF wished to.
Without ammunition, either.
In the current iteration that is the deal. Before 2007 every soldier was to have a crate of the current issue ammo sealed and ready to go for the event of war.

That doesn't stop them from shooting their service rifles on their own time and it is actually encouraged. It also doesn't stop them from acquiring their own personal ammo if they so wished as well. Not to mention the fact they can keep their service rifles after they are discharged should they wish (small administrative fee and they take the full auto bits out).
Misleading to say it does not apply. It does not apply when on duty. When off duty, it does.
It is not misleading it is very clear as to what the firearms act applies to. Again if the CAF provided permission for soldiers to use the CAFs service rifles on their own time, it would be legal as the firearms act doesn't apply to the CAF. That is not your own personal weapon, and it would be subject to approval from the CAF for such activities. I don't see the CAF doing this at any point in the future, simply that they could if they so wished.

'Binding on Her Majesty
  • 3 (1) This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
  • Marginal note: Canadian Forces
    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), this Act does not apply in respect of the Canadian Forces.'

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.
100%, but their arguments were based off the civilian ownership of said firearms. This would not be ownership in any way shape or form, and would actually be the CAF providing practice/training by allowing you to do so on your own time.

I am not surprised that argument fell flat for the OIC. You would basically have to have the government admit that their training is incompetent to be able to win.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
674
Points
1,260
It also doesn't stop them from acquiring their own personal ammo if they so wished as well.
If you really want to do a deep dive into Swiss Army ammunition,
The sale of military-issued ammunition, including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issued assault rifles, is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many Federal Council licensed shooting ranges. That ammunition sold at ranges must be immediately used there under supervision (art. 16 WG/LArm).
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,304
Points
1,140
Kev, haven't seen you on here in quite a while. Welcome back.

We can all agree that more training is better and that higher standards save lives. But the bean counters and lawyers don't see it that way. They look at probability outcomes (i.e. how much risk can we tolerate given the historical likelihood of an OIS occurring in our agency) versus training costs in time and money.

I've been the lead in the development of a new course of fire for a segment of our agency's training. The level of organizational and legal scrutiny that this has gone through so far is staggering.
Yeah - I have seen a lot of large entities struggle - however if one looks at NYC - they recently dropped their (insane) trigger requirement on their Glocks - and have been seeing way better results -- took a few OIS's sadly with poor results (or incorrect people hit) but one bad OIS can be ruinous - and all of a sudden makes funding every officer/agent to a Tier 1 Level of Shooting for 50 years seem cheap...

Different attitudes towards firearms among different nations. I might have been the same person 24/7 but I didn't have the full spectrum of responsibilities when off duty. If I'm walking the dog and see something that I would have typically been dispatched to, I have no legal obligation - particularly if it took me onto private property.
Interesting - some departments have duty of care responsibilities for Off Duty Officers for Felonies, at least violent felonies - otherwise it is best to be a good witness (I have been involved in two off duty incidents - fortunately local to me)

As well, part of the additional rik is the lack of comms , GPS, etc.; you are now another dude with a weapon at the scene. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that one of the reasons so-called 'raid jackets' and other identifiers for plain clothes members became popular in the US was to stop them from shooting each other.
Off Duty Action isn't something to be taken lightly - participating in a NCR (we have one too) Emergency drill I was playing an off duty responder to an Active Shooter - despite having my badge out I took a lot of sim that day - and I knew almost all the responding ERT teams -- during debrief - everyone who shot me said they saw the gun first before their brain had processed my badge or face --- was an eye opener for me.
One issue, not only for off-duty but also for plain clothes members, at least in Ontario, is the legal and policy view that one must carry the full use-of-force spectrum (baton, spray, sidearm, etc.) that is approved by the department for uniformed members. Risk averse departments don't want to create a policy that approves only firearms.
How is a plain clothes officer supposed to carry a baton, OC Spray, Taser etc?
I guess their UC guys get made a lot...
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
688
Points
810
Plain clothes and UC aren’t the same, and the rules, tactics, aren’t the same.

I was taken down at gunpoint in a major city years ago in plain clothes despite them being made aware I was in the area and what I was doing.

An off duty cop with a gun is liability in a nonsensical drunken barn dance when you’re trying to control the chaos and make sense of a call. It’s just some other guy with a gun and a complication.

People don’t like to hear it but we aren’t the same as the states. They have a different view of what they can reasonably expect to be present on calls.
 
Top