• 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
There's a lot of details missing in this story but it casts a shadow over anyone engaged in off-duty practice with duty firearms.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
Off duty means the normal rules apply, so pulling out your duty C8 and 30 round mags is an offense. Assuming that's what was done...
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
622
Points
910
Off duty means the normal rules apply, so pulling out your duty C8 and 30 round mags is an offense. Assuming that's what was done...
My agency allows pre-authorized off-duty practice with our prohibited duty firearms and magazines. There's too much missing from this story for it to make sense to me. Some clubs are turning against off duty practice by LEOs to send a message to Bill Blair. I don't think he'd be facing Criminal Code charges for breaching a club rule/by-law.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,818
Points
990
Gotta be more to this. Could be a member doing everything in good faith and believing themselves from past experience to be in the right, but getting trampled by an NCO or officer who for whatever reason doesn’t hold with prior practice. Could also be a member who in fact did something manifestly wrong. One side or the other on this is going to end up being completely out to lunch.

I think it would have to be pretty egregious for a criminal conviction to be achieved.

For facts’ sake, the issued RCMP handgun is a pro job and the mags at prohib capacity, so it’s not necessarily a C8.

Some civilian ranges have become less welcoming to law enforcement practicing with their issued firearms in the past year or two. At the root of this file, someone from the range must have filed a complaint.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
Here's hoping you have a strong legal opinion supporting that activity. Does your agency have legal authority to approve off duty employment of prohibited weapons?
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,083
Points
1,160
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?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,595
Points
910
Here's hoping you have a strong legal opinion supporting that activity. Does your agency have legal authority to approve off duty employment of prohibited weapons?
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….
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,818
Points
990
RCMP policy explicitly allows for the use of “RCMP-approved firearms for the following duty-related or RCMP-sanctioned activities”, and includes “an organized practice session” conducted at work, as well as “a practice session at an area designated safe for the lawful discharge of a firearm” (I.e., distinct from an employer organized practice).

RCMP members are allowed to store duty firearms at a residence subject to the same storage standards as anyone else, and there are provisions allowing supervisor authorization in writing to exempt from some of those requirements if operationally necessary.

Police officers shooting issued firearms at civilian ranges is quite a common thing, to the extent that this story has caused a lot of surprise and consternation among police circles. I’m convinced there’s more to it, because police officers practicing with issued firearms at civilian ranges is not a weird or illegal thing so long as the range is cool with it and they’re abiding by the applicable legislation, regulation, and policies. I look forward to getting more of the facts on this one.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
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?
If the police force rents a facility for their training, should be fine. As that is on duty for those employing the weapons
 

Booter

New Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
35
Points
330
He’s from a large detachment. Complete and pure speculation- but having managed in a large municipal detachment in Alberta where I also was a firearms trainer.

I would suspect looking at the charges that he was using his issued magazines in his own firearms while shooting off duty,

You don’t sign out a carbine at the range in those places. You train carbine with a COT/CIT.

Articles are pointing out they had a variety of firearms issued and unissued.

I suspect the issued police firearms were not really the issue
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,818
Points
990
He’s from a large detachment. Complete and pure speculation- but having managed in a large municipal detachment in Alberta where I also was a firearms trainer.

I would suspect looking at the charges that he was using his issued magazines in his own firearms while shooting off duty,

You don’t sign out a carbine at the range in those places. You train carbine with a COT/CIT.

Articles are pointing out they had a variety of firearms issued and unissued.
It says service issued firearms (plural) and prohibited device- were he using a force issued mag in a personally owned AR it would likely be a restricted firearm charge, not prohib. I’m assuming he doesn’t own his own S&W 5946. My gut feel here is issued pistol, issued carbine. The former wouldn’t jump out to me as weird. The latter definitely would though it’s not impossible for that to happen legally. With that said the closer you get any any vaguely urban detachment, the tighter the controls on the C8 will likely be. And an on-call remote posting member storing a C8 at home wouldn’t be taking it to the range in Calgary. I also note that there were both issued and non-issued firearms present, according to the story.

Gotta be more to the story.
 

Booter

New Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
35
Points
330
I saw an article that basically described a bag of mixed guns. But good point.
 

Booter

New Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
35
Points
330
Maybe that’s it. Unauthorized possession of the detachment rifle with deception involved in having that possession 🤷‍♀️
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
622
Points
910
I saw an article that basically described a bag of mixed guns. But good point.
The artilce I linked stated that the charges related to his use of service firearms. Would it be possible for a member to be under a firearms prohibition with a CCC 113(1)(b) exemption for on duty use?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,818
Points
990
The artilce I linked stated that the charges related to his use of service firearms. Would it be possible for a member to be under a firearms prohibition with a CCC 113(1)(b) exemption for on duty use?
Not sure. Perhaps? I’d have to double check, but I believe losing the ability to carry and use a firearm could be considered a loss of basic job requirement (like security clearance or ability to drive) and could result in an administrative discharge. (Obviously disability accommodations that preclude carrying a firearm are a different situation)
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
522
Points
960
This part needs to amplified: Possession of a firearm while unauthorized
 

Booter

New Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
35
Points
330
If I recall correctly, you can have an exemption but it is basically never done. It’s almost a vestigial portion of the code except in the case of sustenance hunters.

But I think Modlmike is tracking, that would make some sense
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
622
Points
910
Here's hoping you have a strong legal opinion supporting that activity. Does your agency have legal authority to approve off duty employment of prohibited weapons?
Yes. We are Public Officers for the purposes of possessing prohibited firearms while off-duty and at a place other than an agency facility.
If I recall correctly, you can have an exemption but it is basically never done. It’s almost a vestigial portion of the code except in the case of sustenance hunters.

But I think Modlmike is tracking, that would make some sense
That's kinda where I was going. A wise old friend says "never say "never" and never say "always"."
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,818
Points
990
Yes. We are Public Officers for the purposes of possessing prohibited firearms while off-duty and at a place other than an agency facility.

That's kinda where I was going. A wise old friend says "never say "never" and never say "always"."
My unit has an in house crown prosecutor, and I think h moonlights as a diaper salesman. Always telling me “depends…”
 
Top