Fintlock rifle owner charged

I dont think thats all there is to this Story.
Theres a fricken Amnesty in place.
Sure they could take his rifles IF they asumed they needed to be registered, but Charge him no way!
once he shows them there exempt from registration he has to get his flintlock rifles back.

I think theres B.S here or half the story.
Not by you Nessy by the poster.
 
Sounds like some one may have gotten into a pissing match with the officers instead of calling a lawer first and formost.
 
dingus said:
I dont think thats all there is to this Story.

Sure they could take his rifles IF they asumed they needed to be registered, but Charge him no way!
once he shows them there exempt from registration he has to get his flintlock rifles back.
Click to expand...

While I think there must be more to the story, it does not surprise me that the RCMP would base their decision on their "expert" and not look at the written law. Locally I gave them a copy of the pertinent pages from the Canada Gazette which included the cover page plus the specific sections (on behalf of a friend whose guns were temporarly seized) The office staff were unable to find these sections of the criminal code in their office copy. Eventually they gave the guns back and took our word for it that the Gazette was real and valid. More recently I tried to turn in a couple of scrap shotgun frames for destruction. The local office refused to accept them and only their firearms expert could accept them and not at the office. Bizarre is the only words I can find for it.
I think the only explanation is that the police are so unknowledgeable of firearms law that they refuse to deal with it except in cases of homicide or armed robbery.

cheers mooncoon
 
Just for information, the amnesty only covers non restricted firearms in the possession of someone who has a valid PAL or RPAL. If you do not have a licence, you can indeed be charged with having a firearm without a licence. If these are flintlocks and they actually told you they would rely on thier "Firearms Expert" then you have a very good case. Get a good lawyer and have a ball with them, especially thier expert, I'd love to have a wee chat with them!

Scott
 
Has there still been no independent verification of this incident? If not, I am very surprised and somewhat skeptical. Surely someone on CGN would have picked it up. I find it difficult to believe that any RCMP officer would lay charges after consulting with what they would call an 'expert'. The officers would have to be newbie clued-outs and the expert would have to be a buffoon. The RCMP's own CFC site clearly states that flintlock long guns are antiques (see http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/powder-poudre-eng.htm ). Like Dingus, I have a problem with this report.

I've tried to access the forum, but I need to be a member so I signed up, but then they manually approve the application and my approval still has not been made. Someone with access to the forum should PM the fellow and get the location in Alberta and newspaper reference so that the appropriate forum on CGN can pick up the story from an independent source. Then, if it is true, it needs to be followed up independently.
 
I had a look at the thread. Supposed to be a court date set for sometime this month.
BUT: It is black and white that flintlock longarms are exempt from licencing and registration. Even IF the attending officers arrested the individual, would the Crown proceed with the case? There was no offence.
 
The Crown will not proceed if the fellow's told us the whole story and there's nothing else he's withholding. All he needs to do is to drop by the Crown Prosecutor's office and show them a copy of the law. He doesn't even need a lawyer for this one, unless he's going for a civil suit. If this is legit, he needs to also file a formal complaint with the RCMP. That will put a bad mark on the officer's record and career advancement, not to mention the hassle he/she will have to go through with the investigation once the formal complaint has been filed. Still, I think there has got to be more to the story that the fellow isn't mentioning.
 
Win 38-55 said:
The Crown will not proceed if the fellow's told us the whole story and there's nothing else he's withholding. All he needs to do is to drop by the Crown Prosecutor's office and show them a copy of the law. He doesn't even need a lawyer for this one, unless he's going for a civil suit. If this is legit, he needs to also file a formal complaint with the RCMP. That will put a bad mark on the officer's record and career advancement, not to mention the hassle he/she will have to go through with the investigation once the formal complaint has been filed. Still, I think there has got to be more to the story that the fellow isn't mentioning.
Click to expand...

maybe he wants to make them look stupid in front of the bench.
 
So I must have missed the originial article, where did this take place ?
I am always doubtful of stories that lack details so you can run a check !
I believe the muzzleloading forum is not Canadian based ?
 
There is always 3 sides to a story :confused:
Yours
Theirs
And you normally find the truth in the middle.
The outcome will be interesting, I'm surprised also that no-one one the nutz has heard anything ?
Cheers nessy.
 
Well remeber that guy on CGN posted that the RCMP seized his Antique Revolver in B.C....
I tryed to follow that up,,Well that was pure B.S made up for ####s and giggles.
So tho this could be true it could pure B.S to.
 
Well if it was in Alberta and the fella is telling the truth then a call to the CFO could clear this up as well . but If thiss guy got into a pissing match with the police then they are going to make it as hard on him as they can
 
DEZ said:
... but If this guy got into a pissing match with the police then they are going to make it as hard on him as they can
Click to expand...
A 'pissing match' with the police is always a foolish move, but if they are abusing their authority in order to 'make it as hard on him as they can', then a formal complaint can be filed about that as well. An abuse of authority should be taken seriously by the victim. However, I am still skeptical of the whole thing. I've joined that forum, I've read all his posts, and I've posted some questions for him. We'll see what he says. If he's making this up, or if he's not telling everything, then he needs a massive boot to the behind (preferably with a running start).
 
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I was in touch with this fellow last month by PM. Turns out he has no PAL, which he doesn't need for the flintlocks. BUT, he says they also took other rifles he has had for years that he never registered. No PAL and unregistered non restricteds isn't covered by the amnesty. He is SOL but he didn't mention this in his postings.
As always, what are we NOT being told. The confiscated flintlock thing is a non issue covering for the real issue.
For the flintlock or antique owners out there make a copy of the following and keep it handy when you are out and about with said firearms.
http://w ww.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/powder-poudre-eng.htm
 
theDuck said:
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I was in touch with this fellow last month by PM. Turns out he has no PAL, which he doesn't need for the flintlocks. BUT, he says they also took other rifles he has had for years that he never registered. No PAL and unregistered non restricteds isn't covered by the amnesty. He is SOL but he didn't mention this in his postings.
As always, what are we NOT being told. The confiscated flintlock thing is a non issue covering for the real issue.
For the flintlock or antique owners out there make a copy of the following and keep it handy when you are out and about with said firearms.
http://w ww.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/powder-poudre-eng.htm
Click to expand...

Well we all figured as much
 
Well, it looks like he needs the proverbial massive boot to the backside, preferably with a running start.
 
Well, ok... this one turned out to be a hoax. BUT, I can tell you straight up that there are indeed MANY clueless police officers out there that know nothing about firearms or laws governing firearms.

I'll give you two examples that come to mind. First off, when I was doing my college degree in police technology, I had an internship at a local police station (in Montreal - big city, folks!). At that time, cops here used to carry stainless steel Ruger GP-100's (with the hammers shaved off, due to some cop that cocked his gun in an intervention and shot a handcuffed suspect that was lying on the ground, instead of reading him his rights, lol). Anywho, after a few days, I figured it'd be appropriate to talk firearms with the officer I was riding with, but the dude knew literally nothing despite the fact that he had almost reached retirement age. He did not even know what kind of gun he had or what caliber it could fire. Just to test him, I told him that his gun was a .38 special, but that revolvers could be as big as a .357 magnum... he replied "Oh my God, imagine that! Those must be big like cannons!" (I swear to God... it's just too funny) :D

Then, we went to the Montreal police shooting range (at the "operational center"), as he wanted to let me try his Ruger that hasn't been pulled out of the holster in like the last 10 years. We get to the range and what do you know? He doesn't have any extra ammo, as he has misplaced his speedloaders somewhere a long time ago (he doesn't even remember when or how). So it's the six he's got in the cylinder (provided they still shoot) or nothing. At least he had enough firearm-related common sense not to fire those last 6 rounds off at the range.. or else we'd be SOL if we met up with 7 armed gangbangers! Although I wouldn't rely on his shooting skills either - I had a feeling that the last time he shot was probably at the academy some 20+ years back (Montreal cops did not need to re-qualify at certain intervals like other depts do). The guy even admitted quite openly that shooting wasn't one of his "fortes", because he uses his pen a lot more than his gun ("Wow"... it's all that came to mind when he told me this). A good guy overall and very nice too, but I was very unimpressed with some of his "professionalism", to say the least... Definitely not the guy you want responding to a B&E in progress call at your house when the perp is armed, lol! :eek:


I also know a few guys who just finished the police foundations college-like program in Ontario (and are in the hiring process for the OPP & Ottawa Police). One of them owns a restricted handgun (he has an RPAL), but was so oblivious to the safe storage regulations that he kept his loaded semi-auto 9mm in a small safety box near his bed (the movable kind, with a handle on top). The box was not secured to anything, plus the gun didn't have a trigger lock on it. Buddy thought it wasn't necessary (I had to set him straight on that one - and some other issues too)... Another guy, also applying in Ontario, thought that his Firearms Safety course card was a firearms permit. He never mailed in his RPAL application and actually wanted to go buy guns with his Safety Course card, lol! (I had to clear things up for him, and now he has sent in his application) I AM NOT KIDDING YOU, guys! :eek:

So, can cops be oblivious enough to charge someone with firearms act violations that do not exist OR to omit to charge someone for obvious violations taking place? Absolutely. The prosecutors are usually a bit more on the ball and will dismiss any BS charges, but please do not expect too much out of the (especially) younger generation of beat cops whenever it comes to firearms. For the most part, they're just as bad in getting facts straight as a Lieberal-friendly newspaper. I've only encountered a few exceptions to that rule, but those cops are usually collectors/target shooters themselves (figures, lol).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom