Transporting firearms in Calgary without a car
- Thread starter litui
- Start date
See, and that's where the indoctrination that society has gone through kicks in to full gear.
From an individual rights perspective, no one could ever say that it is justified to search every vehicle in the vicinity of a theft, simply because the vehicle was nearby. Police *MUST* have a reason to suspect, and a reason to search, a private vehicle, if they are to be required to respect individual rights of privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.
The mass indoctrination of "guns are bad" is shown by the fact that because it is a firearm that was stolen, more people are likely to allow a search - why? Why would that make sense at all? Because a firearm *can* be used for a bad purpose, it is "more" justifiable to illegally search someone's vehicle? Hardly! It's just the way we've been taught to think - "firearms are inherently dangerous, and as such, they should be treated like they are a justification for violating peoples' rights" (same logic that was used for virtually the entire C-68 and C-17 bills).
The mass indoctrination of "the police are only capable of doing good, and they are only trying to help" is shown by the fact that you would initially assume that if you are innocent, only good can come from cooperating with an otherwise illegal and unconstitutional search. We've been taught, from a young age, that police are all but infallible, and that their only purpose is to help us and protect us. What we fail to realize, because of this indoctrination, is that police in Canada are not there to protect "us", they are there to protect "the general good of society" which means, to them, upholding each and every law regardless of circumstances and regardless of intent - courts can decide intent, but the police merely gather evidence on potential crimes and, if they feel there is one, press charges.
I'm not trying to be insulting by suggesting you are indoctrinated - we all have been. When I first got interested in the idea of firearms, I fully accepted the "fact" that registration wasn't a big deal, that licensing was "similar to licenses for driving", and that there is valid reason for concealed carry to be all but impossible in canada. The reason I believed those things is because I was also indoctrinated to believe that, inherently, guns are dangerous and bad and must be controlled in order to protect society. What I failed to realize before looking into it more, is that those beliefs are idealistic and rely on criminals obeying one law even though they flaunt others. Once we realize that criminals do not obey the law anyways, we will begin to realize that laws that only speak against actions by law abiding people will do very little, if nothing, to protect society; that is to say, laws that punish people for doing things that do not harm others, directly or indirectly, will never do anything to inhibit criminal activity.
To whit, you can make it illegal to hack a computer system. It is illegal. People who hack computer systems do not obey that law. Computers are, and always will be, widely available. To make it illegal to possess a computer without a license to do so will never inhibit someone from possessing a computer without a license, unless they are a person who obeys the law anyways. In which case, it is moot, because they obey the law and will not hack computer systems, so what good is it requiring them to get a license? People who will not obey that law will also not obey the law requiring them to obtain a license.
Another example - you can make it illegal for someone to drink and drive. It is illegal. You can then turn around and take the license of anyone who drinks and drives. If they are willing to break the law by drinking and driving, are we under any illusions that making it illegal for them to drive is going to stop them from drinking and driving - they already break the law by doing one, what would stop them from doing another? The *only* benefit of this perspective might be that the combined punishment is so great that it deters people. The reason this fails when it applies to firearms offences is because committing an offense with a firearm already carries quite stiff penalties, so the prospect of an added penalty for possession of a firearm without a license pales in comparison to the penalty for committing an actual offense with a firearm. Hence, the person who is willing to commit a serious offense with a firearm will never be deterred by the prospect of a comparatively small additional penalty. It is also unreasonable to make the penalty for mere possession so great that it becomes significant in comparison to the real crime, because it would become a serious risk to criminalizing people who have done no harm to others, and who have no intent of committing what normal people would consider a crime - their only crime would be possession of an object without any intent to commit a crime against someone. That's not just. But we've accepted it because we have been indoctrinated that "firearms are dangerous and bad".
As for your "I still see it as a inconvenience. To me it sounds like a justifiable search. My day isn't so important that it's worth the safety of others. etc etc".
Again, how is it justifiable? The definition of justifiable is that the potential gain from an action outweighs the potential loss or negative effect. I've outlined this already - what are the potential effects from this search?
Positive/gains:
- Could find the gun, if it was stashed without your knowledge (though it could also easily be found by you, without a police search)
Negative/losses:
- Your rights are infringed (this is huge - once we accept the government's ability to infringe upon our rights, we are giving them up. when you demonstrate you no longer desire to keep a right, there is no reason to allow you to keep it. it is a slippery slope that leads only to loss of more rights. look up Hitler's take on rights, and his view on how to strip people of their rights - he says to do it in very small increments, and get the people to agree to it, because they will then never realize that all their rights are being taken until it is too late to get them back)
- Could find the gun, if it was stashed without your knowledge, and they would then have every reason to suspect you in the theft of the gun, and would have every reason to charge you AND arrest you AND detain you in prison for a large variety of charges (you realize that even if you are charged with a crime but those charges are dropped or you are acquitted, especially one involving a firearm, that the CFO can absolutely use those charges as reasons for denying you a license or putting severely restrictive conditions on your license? Just being arrested for illegal possession of a restricted firearm with ammo and the numerous other charges that would certainly result from having an unregistered restricted firearm in your possession would very possibly be enough reason for your license to be revoked, and you would likely be fighting in court to get it back)
- could find something else you didn't know you had, forgot you had, or that mere possession of is illegal but which causes no one any harm (i.e. a joint)
- your passenger could be in possession of something which could lead to problems for you
- they could find something that you didn't realize was illegal, or that they could use to justify charges against you (i.e. ammo that they consider 'carelessly stored')
- if they find any reason to justify charges against you, it may be reason enough to search your home and look for more things against you (many firearms owners, on occasion, break minor laws they do not realize they are breaking, or do things that could be seen as breaking minor laws they don't know exist, such as careless storage of ammo, etc)
- you lose whatever time in your day it takes them to search, at the least, and potentially whatever time it takes to deal with any charges that may arise
So you see, there are many potential negatives, and the only potential positive is one that could also be accomplished by refusing the search, then looking yourself later on. This would give you the benefit of appearing lawful, by following the law and reporting a found firearm, instead of appearing unlawful, by being found in possession of a stolen restricted firearm.
And yes, you might be able to prove that someone stashed the firearm in your vehicle. Sure. *MIGHT*. Why on earth would you want to take that risk, when there is no measurable benefit to taking that risk? When humans take a risk, they inherently weigh the risks with the potential benefits, and if the potential benefits outweigh the risk of loss, they take the risk. In this case, there really is no potential benefit, other than appearing cooperative with the police (which again we are indoctrinated to do and believe we should do).
Point being, why would you risk it? No logical person who's thought through the risks and benefits would ever risk it. But you are willing to because you've been taught that you should.
- Location
- South Ontario
It is legal to walk with you firearms to an authorized range but I imagine it would be more trouble than its worth, get your paper work I order and walk or ride your bike. If you passed the firearms tests just spend the 100$ and get your license. If you can drive a rifle you can drive a car
The point is not that you can afford it, or that you CAN do it, the point is that if there is no law against it, you should not HAVE TO buy yourself a car and get a drivers license. The two should never be mutually inclusive.
Would you also buy yourself a $5,000 suit to wear to the range if that was the only way you wouldn't be harassed by the police on your way to the range? Would you pay the police a bribe if that was the only way you wouldn't get harassed? We live in Canada, we're supposed to be a free country, not one where certain people with certain incomes or abilities can get by easier without harassment from the government or it's henchmen.
Maybe this is my view because i don't any type of record. I take care not to have loose rounds or anything that would be deemed illegal. Nor do i have any friends that would be in my truck with anything illegal. Nor have i had any bad experiences with the RCMP. Only speeding in younger years, but i accepted i was breaking the law and accepted the tickets. I feel zero risk having a justifible search of my truck.
Do you ever throw some 22 rounds in your pocket when you go hunting or shooting? Or other rounds, for that matter? Is there ANY chance that one of them has fallen out (especially those rascally little 22LR's) of your pocket when you got into your truck?
Either way, even if not, my point is, the search itself isn't justifiable. How would the search for a stolen gun be helped by them looking in your truck? Did you steal it?
My point is, what GOOD can come of the search? Even if you personally feel no bad can come of it, what good? It IS a violation of your privacy - if it's one you are comfortable with, that's your choice, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an invasion of your privacy.
So my point is, why would you allow an invasion of your privacy, even if you KNEW that there would be no negative consequences. Would you also let a police officer search your house without a warrant, just because he says that something was stolen nearby? What if he came to your door and said that you were the suspect in a robbery - would you let him search your house without a warrant? That's your choice, but doing so is never a good idea - ask ANY lawyer in the world. No lawyer worth ANYTHING (in fact, I doubt any lawyer, even a worthless one) would tell you that you should submit to a warrantless search EVER.
I wonder what the reason for that is? Could it be because people have had problems result from allowing warrantless searches in the past, regardless of how uncommon it is?
Having a record or not has nothing to do with it. And you can't guarantee that your friends don't smoke pot, not for sure. You can assume, you can be "pretty darn sure", but you can't KNOW. You also can't know if someone has been in your truck without your knowledge, and perhaps left something behind you don't know about. Point being, again, that no GOOD can come from the search, and there's only potential bad, regardless of how minor and small and unlikely it is.
Would you ever leave your house and leave a wood burning fireplace (open front fireplace) burning? My guess is, no you wouldn't. Chances are real good nothing would happen, but it's pretty standard protocol to put out the fire before you leave, just to be sure. On that same token, I'd rather not open myself up to ANY risk that a problem would arise from a warrantless search - the police are searching for evidence of any crime, not just the one in question. Better to have zero chance they find anything questionable (even if you are sure nothing exists in your vehicle), than have a 0.00001% chance.
Maybe this is the key part. It's not a violation of your privacy if you allow it.
And yes i can guarantee which of MY friends do or don't smoke pot.
There was a gun stolen from our local gun store about a month ago. Had the RCMP came to my door and said they wanted to search my house without a warrent i would say no. If the gun was stolen from my neighbor, i'd still say no. However, if i was in the area with my truck and they had a check stop, stopping every car going by saying we have reason to believe the crimal stashed the firearm on someone elses car, to be retrieved later, i would let them look. By submitting to the search, it will work to my innocence if they found the firearm in the box. Sure they would have more questions, maybe even ask "to take me in" for questioning, but they couldnt hold me without charges. Any lawyer would be able to get you out, as i said before, hello lawsuit.
So, let's go with your option. You politely say no and so forth. Do you think they just say, ok on your way. No, they will ask to wait and stay, followed by more questions, they try an intimatate you. Because to them you just became "supsicous" but not a suspect. So even if you have nothing illegal on your person or have the stashed gun hiding. Good won't come of it either. I bet they will even take down your name for questioning later, then if you go home and find the gun, up come more red flags.
So maybe here is the thing to do. Deny the search, be incovievenced anyway. But not have your privacy violated, as you feel. Go home, no gun. Good. Go home find the gun, throw it in the river...
And yes i can guarantee which of MY friends do or don't smoke pot.
There was a gun stolen from our local gun store about a month ago. Had the RCMP came to my door and said they wanted to search my house without a warrent i would say no. If the gun was stolen from my neighbor, i'd still say no. However, if i was in the area with my truck and they had a check stop, stopping every car going by saying we have reason to believe the crimal stashed the firearm on someone elses car, to be retrieved later, i would let them look. By submitting to the search, it will work to my innocence if they found the firearm in the box. Sure they would have more questions, maybe even ask "to take me in" for questioning, but they couldnt hold me without charges. Any lawyer would be able to get you out, as i said before, hello lawsuit.
So, let's go with your option. You politely say no and so forth. Do you think they just say, ok on your way. No, they will ask to wait and stay, followed by more questions, they try an intimatate you. Because to them you just became "supsicous" but not a suspect. So even if you have nothing illegal on your person or have the stashed gun hiding. Good won't come of it either. I bet they will even take down your name for questioning later, then if you go home and find the gun, up come more red flags.
So maybe here is the thing to do. Deny the search, be incovievenced anyway. But not have your privacy violated, as you feel. Go home, no gun. Good. Go home find the gun, throw it in the river...
You're wrong - it's still an invasion of your privacy, it's just one that you've authorized. They are still coming into your private space and looking around.
Just like owning a gun in Canada is a criminal offence, but it's authorized for people with a license. It's still a criminal offence though, and as such, it gives the police more power to look into your actions and determine if you are licensed. If it was not a criminal offence to own a gun, then they would have no legitimate grounds to ask to see a license, because they don't have reasonable cause to suspect you broke the law. Same idea - criminal offence but it's an authorized one; invasion of privacy but an authorized one.
Crazy, you're the first person I've ever known to drug test all of his friends. Do you watch them pee in the cup, too? If not, how can you be sure?
Point being, you can't be sure of ANYONE's actions other than your own. Ever wonder why people don't know if their spouse is cheating on them? Sometimes they swear it could never happen, they know them too well, and yet they find out they've been cheating for years. Same idea. Your friend could swear up and down he doesn't smoke pot, you could "know him" and "know" he doesn't... at the end of the day, only he knows for sure.
First off, so you are ok with some violations of your privacy but not others? By your logic, why would you not let them look in your house? After all, you've got nothing to hide, and it's just a minor inconvenience. You must have a reason for not wanting them in your house without a warrant? Why would that not apply to your car too?
See, this is where you admit your logic falls apart and realize you shouldn't let warrantless searches proceed, ever, in your car, home, business, or on your person.
Regarding your "hello lawsuit" point - there's no lawsuit there. You were found in possession of a stolen firearm. They have every reason to believe you stole it, and even if they don't believe you stole it, they have every reason to believe you are in possession of stolen property (you were). You could, and likely would, be charged at least with possession, if not the actual theft. And there would be ZERO basis for a lawsuit against them. Any judge in the country would say "well, you were in possession of it, so prove that you didn't know". You are presumed to be innocent, but your possession of stolen property gives the crown the ability to rely on that possession as evidence, as such, you would have to prove that you did not know it was there or did not know it was stolen (and even then, I think it might be considered a "strict liability" offence, where the only defense is due diligence, so you likely couldn't try to prove you didn't know it was stolen, only that you didn't know it was there in the first place). yes, you would likely get off, but you would be almost certain to face charges, and with good reason.
This is why any lawyer, at all, would tell you never to submit to a search like this - because you never truly know FOR SURE what could be found. Hell, maybe it's a bad cop and plants something on you - far fetched, but why risk it? Again, it's a question of zero risk vs. some (even marginal) risk. You'd have to be stupid or naive to take the second option.
They can try to intimidate you all you want - they can't search without just cause, and they can't get a warrant without just cause. Saying no to a groundless warrantless search is not just cause. They can try to intimidate you, but at the end of the day, unless they have reason, they cannot search. A judge would not issue a search warrant on the basis that you said no to a warrantless search. They would have to present *some* evidence to show that they suspect it was you who stole or possesses the gun.
Sure, they can come back and question you. That's fine. You didn't steal it and they have no reason to believe you did. No warrant, no search.
And no, if you went home and found it, then called, you are doing what's known as following the law. You have found a firearm and are reporting it. That's legally required. What's not legally required is for you to submit to a search.
In this case, if they charged you, they would have no reason to believe that you broke the law, because you exercised good faith - you found something and called to report it. In this case, if they did charge you, you WOULD have reason for a lawsuit. You broke no laws previously, you simply stood up for your rights. You then got home and found something that you knew you are legally required to report. In calling to report it, you show good faith by doing so - reasonable doubt comes in when you go out of your way to call in.
Whereas with the search, many people have allowed police searches, only to realize the police found something. They allow the search either because they think they have to or because they think that the police won't find something. Then when they do, they try to say "it's not mine. why would i allow a search if i knew that was there" and the answer is that they figured the cops wouldn't find it - they're still in possession of it.
If you called and reported it, you better believe they will investigate you and find out if there is reason to believe you stole the gun in the first place. They will look at evidence, etc, but if the only evidence is that you called to report you found it, that's not enough to bring charges and have the crown pursue them. If they find it themselves, it's always worse (again, ask a lawyer).
That would be illegal.
As I said, you deny the search, they give you some grief for it but can't force the search on you. You pull into your garage at home, open your truck, and search it yourself. If you find anything that's stolen or suspect, you don't touch it, you take pictures, you call a lawyer and let him know, he will direct you to call the police and tell them what you found.
Heck if you wanted to, video record everything from the moment you leave the police roadblock to you getting home and searching the vehicle. Just one more piece of evidence. But even without the video, all you've done is say "i don't want my rights violated, sorry" and gone home. You then found something you suspected was illegal, and immediately called the police to report it. The firearms act even addresses this specifically (with respect to guns in general, and someone without a license to possess that gun). It says that if you come into possession of the gun but, in a reasonably quick time, turn it over to the police, that it is an excuse for unlawful possession. Would that get you out of the theft or possession of stolen goods charge? Not the firearms act section, but the intent is there, and you likely wouldn't be charged at all - if you were, and they pursued charges, then you'd have a much better case than if they found it themselves.
As i said already, the police finding something is ALWAYS worse than you finding something and calling to report it. Always.
Another example - if you don't have a firearms license, and you come across a gun in the woods. You put it in your truck, planning on taking it to the police. You get stopped and they ask to search your vehicle.
1. You don't mention the gun and they find it (because you stupidly let them search), now you're charged.
2. You mention the gun, let them find it, and you might get off on the basis that you reported it, but you still might be in trouble because the police found it
3. you deny the search, go home, call the police and tell them what you found and you'd like them to collect it. they come collect it, no charges, 100% guaranteed.
or you could just call them as soon as you found it, and report it. same deal, no charges.
Never let the police find something illegal on you, as it's always worse. better you turn it in and look like a good citizen "doing the right thing" than a questionable one who got caught and is now making up excuses for his illegal behavior.
Think of it - how do they know that you didn't let them search because you didn't realize you could say no? How do they know that you didn't just figure they wouldn't find the gun? They have every reason to at least suspect you, and they have clear evidence to support that suspicion. Whereas if you call it in, you've made it very clear you're "just a good citizen trying to follow the law", and they would have to show more evidence that would support your breaking the law.
I don't know how else to put it - you've already said you wouldn't allow a warrantless search under some circumstances - so you see the value in saying no to that kind of search. why is your car different? it isn't. call a lawyer and ask them. they'll tell you exactly what i've said, i'd put money on it (i've been told it by a lawyer before, so i doubt i'm wrong).
And i'm telling you i know 100% what is in my truck because i am 100% anal when it comes to that. All 5 of my cars/trucks are spotless inside and out.
Edit: That is not illegal and has been put here by myself or by someone i have allowed into my vechical
Edit: That is not illegal and has been put here by myself or by someone i have allowed into my vechical
Last edited:
I used to work for a major car auction business here in the GTA.
My job was to categorize cars for auction with all it's features and km's, interior trim, etc.
You would not believe the things I would find in people's car.
If you have ever bought a used car, I would fully expect that it is possible for the police to find something if they tear your car apart,
I would guess at least a 20% chance. Probably more.
Do you have kids? I bet they have at least smoked pot once.
Probably in your car that Saturday night they stayed out past home time, so you grounded him for Sunday.
Did a little piece of pot fall under the seat in the process? Oops.
My job was to categorize cars for auction with all it's features and km's, interior trim, etc.
You would not believe the things I would find in people's car.
If you have ever bought a used car, I would fully expect that it is possible for the police to find something if they tear your car apart,
I would guess at least a 20% chance. Probably more.
Do you have kids? I bet they have at least smoked pot once.
Probably in your car that Saturday night they stayed out past home time, so you grounded him for Sunday.
Did a little piece of pot fall under the seat in the process? Oops.
Last edited:
See that's the point.... you know because you checked at some point. Things happen over time. Do you clean your vehicle every day, after every time you use it? If so, fair enough. If you leave it for even one extra trip, then you cannot be sure. You can be reasonably sure.
See what you're getting confused on is confidence and guarantees. You are confident that your truck only contains what you have in it. Unless you search it every time you exit the truck, have an alarm that is 100% failsafe (doesn't really exist), always use that alarm, search through your pockets and the pockets of everyone who enters the truck, clean your boots off too, then get in the truck, you can not guarantee that there is nothing in it that you don't know of.
Can you be pretty damn sure, if you simply clean it every day? yes, of course you can. But you cannot be 100% sure.
There are a million examples of "what if" scenarios that would lead to something being in your truck that a police officer could construe as being illegal or illegal due to the method in which it is stored:
1. your buddy and you go shooting, you empty your pockets but miss one tiny 22lr round that snuck into a pocket you didn't dig deep enough into. you get into your truck and have to grab something else you put in that pocket. when you do that, the shell falls out. now you have ammo that could very well be seen as "carelessly stored"
2. same situation as above, except this time it's your buddy who does it (and you have much less control over what exactly your buddy does compared to yourself - you aren't going to turn your friends' pockets inside out before they get in your truck.... are you?)
3. same situation as above except your friend smokes pot and you didn't realize that (yes wendy, it's possible you don't know every single aspect of every single one of your friends', acquaintances', spouse's, or childrens' lives, even if you think you do, you can't guarantee you do). now he's dropped a joint in your truck instead of an errant 22 round (clearly one 22 round might be overlooked by many cops, but again, it's not a guarantee, the cop might have a hard on for gun owners... it's been known to happen....)
4. same situation as above except your friend had some prescription pills (legally prescribed) in his pocket and one fell out. he doesn't have the prescription bottle with him.
5. same situation as above except your friend has some illegal prescription pills or other "hard drugs" in his pocket and one/some fell out, and he has no legal excuse for it (and, given this means he's a drug addict and you didn't know it, you also might not expect that he would deny knowing anything about them, leaving you, the vehicle owner, liable)
6. a million other possibilities that are unlikely, but possible, that would result in something being in your vehicle that you don't know about and that shouldn't be there, any one of which could result in you getting charged or, at the very least, detained and/or brought downtown for questioning.
Also, remember something very important - if you are questioned or a suspect in a case that involves drugs or firearms, or other things, even if you are not charged, that can, and sometimes is, held against you with respect to your firearms license and/or ATT and/or ATC. if you were questioned about a couple of errant cartridges that were under your, or your friend's, seat, that could affect your renewal. If it was drugs, same thing. If you are charged and then the charges are dropped, that too can have a significant effect (some charges result in you immediately losing your firearms license, or the suspension of it - after which you might have to fight to get it back, and even when you get it back, you might then have to fight to get your guns back, and even then you might have to fight to get an ATT again - yes, it's happened to someone i know personally, so this isn't a case of "making up random examples").
So, I say it again, you cannot guarantee you know everything in your truck at all times, and even if you are not convicted, or even charged, it can affect you in a negative way. Why on God's green earth (or if you're an atheist, on this old ball of rock and dirt) would you ever want to risk that, just to make a police officer 'feel better' that he was able to search your vehicle? As mentioned in my previous posts, there is no downside that can cause real problems for you, by not allowing a search. I guess the only theoretical negative is if that cop doesn't like you anymore, because you turned him down, and rides you next time he sees you... but since you *NEVER* do anything illegal, that is even less important to a guy like you than the rest of us who might accidentally skirt the law from time to time (speed limit, ammo storage, whatever it is.... everyone makes honest mistakes from time to time, even you). But that is clearly a much smaller risk than giving that same cop who, if he is willing to target you because you refused a search, is likely to be willing to make your life hard if he finds anything in a consented for search, the ability to search you/your car/your home (oh wait, you won't let him search your home, my bad).
Yea man, it's amazing what you find in cars. I used to (long time ago) spend a lot of time at the scrap yard pulling parts and working on cars on the side... the crap you'd find in some of those vehicles (which had already been gone through by the scrap yard employees) was amazing. Found morphine pills, lots of pot, esctasy tablets, lots of needles, empty pill capsules, empty cartridge shells, live cartridges, pipes (smoking pipes, for various drugs), etc.
Riggseven:
Now sure, you can be reasonably sure you aren't going to find heroin and needles in your own vehicle.... but I say it again, you never know your friends, acquaintances, or even your family, 100%. Why risk anything when you don't have to?
The entire reason for warrants is to give us some protection. Why would you give it up? You've been brainwashed to think that "it's for the good of society"... just give up a few rights a few times, it'll help society. Just give up some more rights, a few more times, it'll help society. Oh crap, you've got no rights left to give... oh well, you helped society.
Again if your talking about MY cars zero. All bought from new, never had a used car. My kids are too young, nothing illegal there. I do know people that do drugs, they've never been in my cars.
You work for a car auction company. I also bet that most of those cars are up for auction because they where taken by the police...heck that could your 20% right there. So your sample is kinda tainted. Plus your in the GTA area so there is higher drug/crime rate there. Again kinda changes your sample.
Like i said, my lifesyle yes nope to the chances of anything illegal....now ask me the same 15years ago...different answer
You work for a car auction company. I also bet that most of those cars are up for auction because they where taken by the police...heck that could your 20% right there. So your sample is kinda tainted. Plus your in the GTA area so there is higher drug/crime rate there. Again kinda changes your sample.
Like i said, my lifesyle yes nope to the chances of anything illegal....now ask me the same 15years ago...different answer
This became pointless long ago. I thought that I could make you realize a point... obviously I cannot. You simply refuse to admit reality - that you cannot control everything.
And I don't know about the GTA, but police auctions are different than other auctions. Here we have repo auctions, police auctions, and private auctions. Some are all mushed into one big auction, but many are not.
Either way, the scrap yard is simply cars that have been in accidents, anything ranging from getting t-boned to smashing into a wall while drunk.
What if you're in a hurry one day and forgot to lock your doors, and some guy running from the cops stashed some crap in your truck? Oh, I forgot, you also don't have crime in your area. Wait a minute, why are you being stopped in the first place and being asked if you will allow a search of your vehicle for stolen goods... Obviously if the cops want to search your vehicle, they think there's a chance there's stolen goods there....
But again, it doesn't matter. You're perfect, everyone you know is perfect, and you never make a mistake. Good to know... are you employed right now, or are you looking? I'd love to hire a guy who never makes mistakes, ever.
Keep giving up your rights, one at a time, one event at a time. I, for one, will stand up for my rights so that they are not taken because I do not use them. I hope most Canadians feel this way, or start to feel this way, or we will lose them.
Look at C-51 - do you think if we had been championing our privacy rights for decades, would they have passed that law? Look at some european countries - they have incredibly strict privacy laws, because they ensured their rights were not going to be violated (in that way... sadly they didn't care about other rights).
I assume you think C-51 is no big deal either though... after all, nothing to hide, so they can monitor your every move, communication, etc, right?
(still don't understand why you wouldn't allow a search of your house?)
Like i said my lifestyle choice dictates that i do know 100% which people i hang out do what drugs. And as a responsible gun owner i know that 1 single 22 round could net me a unsafe transport or storage charge. I also know how many rounds are on me or in my truck when i go shooting and account for them when im done. The company i keep do the same.
You never shoot with bulk ammo? Your friends don't? You never pick up a "bulk pack" of ammo (especially 22LR)?
If you do, do you count them? There are generally more than the stated number in the package. After you shoot, you really count them all? You've never once grabbed a handful of rounds, thrown them in a pocket, and gone shooting?
And you really trust all of your friends to do the same (count every single round before and after shooting)? That's a hell of a lot of trust in perfection... easy to mis count when you're counting more than a handful of rounds.
But wait a minute.... I can't believe I didn't notice this before. This is funny now....
You said:
So what is it? You always know what's in your truck, or you don't do a walk around every time you jump in?
If you always know, then why would you let him search - you know he won't find anything. Why waste your time? Just to be nice?
If you don't always know, then why risk it? Like I said, you or your friend might have dropped something, or a criminal might have stashed something. Either way it might not end well for you - certainly not as well as it would end if you found it yourself and called it in.....
If you do, do you count them? There are generally more than the stated number in the package. After you shoot, you really count them all? You've never once grabbed a handful of rounds, thrown them in a pocket, and gone shooting?
And you really trust all of your friends to do the same (count every single round before and after shooting)? That's a hell of a lot of trust in perfection... easy to mis count when you're counting more than a handful of rounds.
But wait a minute.... I can't believe I didn't notice this before. This is funny now....
You said:
So what is it? You always know what's in your truck, or you don't do a walk around every time you jump in?
If you always know, then why would you let him search - you know he won't find anything. Why waste your time? Just to be nice?
If you don't always know, then why risk it? Like I said, you or your friend might have dropped something, or a criminal might have stashed something. Either way it might not end well for you - certainly not as well as it would end if you found it yourself and called it in.....
