Transporting firearms in Calgary without a car
- Thread starter litui
- Start date
WestIslandRifle
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- QUEBEKISTAN, Canada
I know here in Quebec you could take any form of public transport with a non restricted or restricted firearm asking as the gun is unloaded and locked up .... That was until they introduced law9 or anistasias law ( named after the girl killed in the Dawson shooting )
GMC Trucker
Regular
- Location
- Airdrie, AB
Since this was resurrected, it may be worth a call to Calgary Transit to check if they make a distinction between carrying a firearm and transporting a firearm. In my mind, if you're carrying a firearm, it's ready for use and on your body (concealed or open/visible); transporting a firearm would then mean it's unloaded, inoperable and in a case. It really depends what the intention of the bylaw is.
Cheers,
GMC
whiteoutjeeper
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
You can't have a firearm on Calgary Transit.
Just figured I'd bring this back up.
What if you wanted/had to walk to a friends' house or the range... could you really even do it? Padded case over your shoulder with a backpack containing the ammo etc?
You'd probably get stopped, not likely with the TAC team though (if it was not in a case, then I figure you'd be taken down hard....)...
Maybe you could even call the CPS in advance, and just say to the person who answer the non-emergency line "hey, I'm a licensed gun owner, and I am planning on walking to the range today. Just wanted to let you know, as I'll have a padded rifle case over my shoulder." kind of thing.
That way you're not hiding it, but you're doing what you can to ease any issues you might have.
Thoughts?
What if you wanted/had to walk to a friends' house or the range... could you really even do it? Padded case over your shoulder with a backpack containing the ammo etc?
You'd probably get stopped, not likely with the TAC team though (if it was not in a case, then I figure you'd be taken down hard....)...
Maybe you could even call the CPS in advance, and just say to the person who answer the non-emergency line "hey, I'm a licensed gun owner, and I am planning on walking to the range today. Just wanted to let you know, as I'll have a padded rifle case over my shoulder." kind of thing.
That way you're not hiding it, but you're doing what you can to ease any issues you might have.
Thoughts?
+1 ^
Calling the CPS ahead would save you lots of trouble. Using a hard case is alittle less obvious. I'm sure you'll be incovinced more than once by the CPS just checking in. Better for them to look into it, just to make sure you're a sane person heading to the range.
Not to scare you but. I live in a 25,000+ city. A couple years back the local police where dispatched because a gentelman took his firearm out of his truck (non-restricted, transported properally) in a soft (gun shaped) case. Crossed the street to a sporting goods store, that does gunsmithing. Cops had the place surrounded shortly after a call saying someone was walking around downtown with a gun.
Calling the CPS ahead would save you lots of trouble. Using a hard case is alittle less obvious. I'm sure you'll be incovinced more than once by the CPS just checking in. Better for them to look into it, just to make sure you're a sane person heading to the range.
Not to scare you but. I live in a 25,000+ city. A couple years back the local police where dispatched because a gentelman took his firearm out of his truck (non-restricted, transported properally) in a soft (gun shaped) case. Crossed the street to a sporting goods store, that does gunsmithing. Cops had the place surrounded shortly after a call saying someone was walking around downtown with a gun.
A couple of years back I went through a nasty divorce.
My ex started calling the cops on me for all sorts of BS, and I was able to perceive where things were going - so I gave my local police department a call.
I explained my situation, and requested to have them take possession of my firearms while the drama unfolded.
They were happy to do it, and I wasn't wrong in my estimation that she would escalate her accusations.
Anyways - my personal experiences with my ex and her drama aren't the point of why I'm writing this.
My point is, that after all the dust settled and things were back to normal - I went and retrieved my firearms from the cop shop.
When I was there to pick the up - they asked me if I had a blanket or something in my car to wrap them up in for the walk out to my car in the parking lot.
I did, and happily obliged them.
So basically, I was directed to 'conceal' my rifles while walking them out to the car.
I'm not saying the above posters are incorrect about a guitar case. They're probably spot on.
But I can relate to you from personal experience that sometimes even the cops think its a good idea to wrap 'em up in a blanket in order to 'conceal' them.
My ex started calling the cops on me for all sorts of BS, and I was able to perceive where things were going - so I gave my local police department a call.
I explained my situation, and requested to have them take possession of my firearms while the drama unfolded.
They were happy to do it, and I wasn't wrong in my estimation that she would escalate her accusations.
Anyways - my personal experiences with my ex and her drama aren't the point of why I'm writing this.
My point is, that after all the dust settled and things were back to normal - I went and retrieved my firearms from the cop shop.
When I was there to pick the up - they asked me if I had a blanket or something in my car to wrap them up in for the walk out to my car in the parking lot.
I did, and happily obliged them.
So basically, I was directed to 'conceal' my rifles while walking them out to the car.
I'm not saying the above posters are incorrect about a guitar case. They're probably spot on.
But I can relate to you from personal experience that sometimes even the cops think its a good idea to wrap 'em up in a blanket in order to 'conceal' them.
No not better for them to look into it. It shouldn't be a crime to possess a gun in the first place. Better for them to tell a caller who's reporting you "is he doing anything wrong though? Is he threatening? Oh he's just walking along? Mind your own business then thanks for the call"
But we live in a place where firearms are criminalized and demonized. The only reason I would call in is to ensure I don't have the tactical response team bright down on me for doing a legal thing.
And your example is a perfect example of how stupid our country has gotten. I'm just gonna go out on a limb and ask if you live in Onterrible?
I was only suggesting to be pro-active against crime. Just hope they would catch the guy that hasnt done anything wrong yet. I personally would be ok with the rcmp stopping me as i leave the range to see if my affairs are in order. In hopes that they catch the guy that does have a stolen gun or was one his way to do something criminal. But thats just me.
And no im in Lloyd. Little bit Alberta, little bit Sask.
And no im in Lloyd. Little bit Alberta, little bit Sask.
You realize, however, that there is a huge difference between being pro-active in fighting crime and violating someone's rights on the premise that they "might be" committing a crime, right?
To take it very far to the extreme, you've seen (or heard of) the Minority Report? That kind of thing is where this kind of attitude leads to.
The police checking your stuff as you leave the range "just to see if your affairs are in order" assumes that your affairs are not in order. In order for the police to stop you and inspect you or your possessions, they need to have some reason to believe you are violating the law, otherwise it is an unjust infringement upon your rights. The only reason they can do it is because possession of firearms has been made illegal, and they only reason we can possess them at all is because the PAL gives us a legal excuse to break the law.
Would you be opposed to the police stopping people randomly to check and see if they are legal citizens of Canada? Or would you consider that a violation of your rights? What about police stopping you to frisk you and ensure you are not carrying any weapons? What about the police stopping everyone they wanted to, running fingerprints, asking them for alibi's regarding crimes that were recently committed, regardless of any reasonable suspicion of involvement or guilt?
My point is, that there is no justification for violating someone's rights on the premise that "they might be committing a crime" and CERTAINLY NOT because "they might commit a crime".
What you are suggesting is that it is acceptable for some people in society to be targeted, and have their rights violated, because others choose to break the law.
Is it really a balance that you want to accept, that the police could check every law abiding person leaving the range in the hopes of catching the very, very tiny minority of people who possess a stolen firearm (and who was leaving a gun range, which is almost certainly going to be an incredibly rare occasion, and would likely be reported so they would have reason to check on that particular day at that particular time)? Is it really a balance you are willing to accept that the police should check every law abiding person leaving the range in hopes of finding someone who is "on his way to do something criminal"? How would they even prove he is on his way to do something criminal?
Another point I have here is that you appear to have bought into the theory that firearms owners are all potential criminals.
How about the assumption of innocence? Should we not be assumed to be innocent, until there is reason to believe otherwise, and at that point, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
What you are suggesting inevitably leads to a police state in which everyone is subject to having their rights violated arbitrarily.
The whole idea of "being proactive against crime" is premised on violating the rights of law abiding people. This is why we need to have our ability to defend ourselves, and our ability to own guns for that defense, enshrined as a right. We need the ability to carry a firearm for protection. Because the alternative is that the police will continually be given the power to violate our rights, and as time goes on, more and more of those rights will be violated and under attack. Police simply cannot be proactive against crime without violating our rights. Why not, instead of giving them that power, demand that they have reason to suspect a crime has occurred or is going to occur? Would they miss the occasional "crime about to happen" or "crime just committed"? Yea, they probably would (i.e. a guy steals guns from a car at a range, and leaves before the owner gets back - stopping every car on the way out of the range would likely catch that guy), but the number of times they miss out on catching someone would be comparatively small when contrasted with the number of law abiding people who's rights have been violated.
How many rights are you willing to give up for "security" and "a feeling of comfort"? How far are you willing to allow your rights to be violated in the name of "security"?
I'm not willing to give up mine, not at all. I would much rather the one in a million guy who steals a gun from a car at the range gets away from the range, and gets caught later because he's a criminal and will inevitably mess up, than give up my rights. If everyone could be armed, that guy who stole the gun from the range would be much less a threat, compared with what he is now.
Virtually every 'mass murder' occurs in places where guns are prohibited or severely restricted. If everyone was allowed to carry guns, the deterrent factor would be huge when it comes to that guy who stole a gun from a car at the range - and if/when he decides he is going to use that gun to commit a crime, there will be people there to stop him. As it stands, and by your line of thinking, the cops should try to stop him before he gets away. What happens when they miss him? Or what happens when he steals it from another location where cops are not able to predict he might be there? Then he gets away, with the gun - but now because no one has guns on them to defend themselves, he has the ability to do as he pleases without anyone able to stop him, at least until the police get there.
I would much rather live in a society where I had my freedom and my rights, and where I was able to rely on myself to ensure my own security, rather than give up my rights, and rely on the hope that someone else will protect me (and where I would have to assume or hope that they would arrive on time).
You have great points. I guess its just cause you can see the gun case as he rides his bike. Your right, it sucks that we live in an age where no one wants or is allowed to step in. See the video of the fight in walmart? Look how many people just stood there and watched. Or in Moncton where people have video of the shooter walkig down the street, then he shot the one cop in back.
The problem is that we are talking about something that can be dangerous. Do you tell the police they are infirngment of your rights when they do a check stop? They are looking for someone that might be conmitting a crime.
The problem is that we are talking about something that can be dangerous. Do you tell the police they are infirngment of your rights when they do a check stop? They are looking for someone that might be conmitting a crime.
There's a difference between not wanting to, not being allowed to, and knowing that if you do you risk much.
If we were given the freedom to carry, and specific circumstances where we knew we would be protected under law (assumed to have acted reasonably or in good faith), then I believe many more people would be willing to step forward in an effort to help others or for the greater good. Would everyone? Certainly not - many people would not be willing to risk their own well-being for others. But many would - what stops them now is that the risk of self-harm is too great when compared to the possible benefit of taking that risk.
We need to lower the risk of harm to the 'good samaritan' while enabling them to act effectively.
And yes, if the police pulled me over and asked to search my truck because they were looking for a criminal in the area, I would ask them if they believe I am that criminal. I would ask them for the reason they feel I might be that criminal. I don't care if they are looking for someone who might be committing a crime, or who might have - I still have my rights, and I cannot accept that might rights be infringed along with everyone else's so they can catch one person.
Just like what happened with the firearm being stolen in calgary from the off-duty cop. They searched the cars of numerous people in the area, and no one refused the search. All that did is empower and enable them to violate people's rights. Every single person who was searched had every right to say "do you suspect it is me in possession of that firearm?" and when the cops said "no, we are just searching everyone" they could have been fully within their rights to say "well, I am not in possession of the property in question, and I am sorry but I can't consent to the search."
Police being given unlimited power is also a very dangerous thing. I would much prefer that a criminal is free for a short while longer, and have the police get proper evidence on him, than give the police unlimited power and end up with countless innocent people being harassed and arrested and possibly charged, just to ensure they also caught the right guy.
In fact, look at the situation we now have. The police currently have a policy that largely allows them to lay charges if there is ANY suspicion of wrongdoing - even if they can plainly see it is unlikely that the person broke the law, or there is plenty of doubt but a slight chance they broke the law, they often lay charges. I'm not saying they do it every time, but look at a few cases, such as Ian Thomson, Kyle McCosh, and others, who were charged with various Firearms Act and Criminal Code violations, when the evidence before the officers was generally quite clear that there would certainly be, at the very least, reasonable doubt. Instead of saying to themselves "well, it would be a violation of this persons rights to charge them with a crime, given the fact that we have very little real evidence to support the fact they may have committed the crime", they say "there's a chance they committed it, so we'll charge them and let the courts decide" - that's all well and good, except for the fact that it can destroy a persons life, having to go through being charged, defending oneself, losing the time and money associated with a trial, etc.
Giving the police unlimited power, as I have said, is very dangerous. I am all for law and order, and I am *certainly* all for locking up criminals. But it has to be done in a way that respects the rights of innocent people.
If we were given the freedom to carry, and specific circumstances where we knew we would be protected under law (assumed to have acted reasonably or in good faith), then I believe many more people would be willing to step forward in an effort to help others or for the greater good. Would everyone? Certainly not - many people would not be willing to risk their own well-being for others. But many would - what stops them now is that the risk of self-harm is too great when compared to the possible benefit of taking that risk.
We need to lower the risk of harm to the 'good samaritan' while enabling them to act effectively.
And yes, if the police pulled me over and asked to search my truck because they were looking for a criminal in the area, I would ask them if they believe I am that criminal. I would ask them for the reason they feel I might be that criminal. I don't care if they are looking for someone who might be committing a crime, or who might have - I still have my rights, and I cannot accept that might rights be infringed along with everyone else's so they can catch one person.
Just like what happened with the firearm being stolen in calgary from the off-duty cop. They searched the cars of numerous people in the area, and no one refused the search. All that did is empower and enable them to violate people's rights. Every single person who was searched had every right to say "do you suspect it is me in possession of that firearm?" and when the cops said "no, we are just searching everyone" they could have been fully within their rights to say "well, I am not in possession of the property in question, and I am sorry but I can't consent to the search."
Police being given unlimited power is also a very dangerous thing. I would much prefer that a criminal is free for a short while longer, and have the police get proper evidence on him, than give the police unlimited power and end up with countless innocent people being harassed and arrested and possibly charged, just to ensure they also caught the right guy.
In fact, look at the situation we now have. The police currently have a policy that largely allows them to lay charges if there is ANY suspicion of wrongdoing - even if they can plainly see it is unlikely that the person broke the law, or there is plenty of doubt but a slight chance they broke the law, they often lay charges. I'm not saying they do it every time, but look at a few cases, such as Ian Thomson, Kyle McCosh, and others, who were charged with various Firearms Act and Criminal Code violations, when the evidence before the officers was generally quite clear that there would certainly be, at the very least, reasonable doubt. Instead of saying to themselves "well, it would be a violation of this persons rights to charge them with a crime, given the fact that we have very little real evidence to support the fact they may have committed the crime", they say "there's a chance they committed it, so we'll charge them and let the courts decide" - that's all well and good, except for the fact that it can destroy a persons life, having to go through being charged, defending oneself, losing the time and money associated with a trial, etc.
Giving the police unlimited power, as I have said, is very dangerous. I am all for law and order, and I am *certainly* all for locking up criminals. But it has to be done in a way that respects the rights of innocent people.
I have a box cover on my truck. I dont do a walk around everytime i jump in. If a cop askes to search my truck because they are looking for a criminal in the area. I'd say go ahead, Anything else i can do to help? You say your rights are being infringed upon. I say your being slightly inconvienced. What if this jumped in your truck box and you never seen him? To many people worry to much about themselves, we need to look out for each other. WITH the cops. They are not the enemy.
I was trying to use a DUI checkstop as an example. Would you tell the cop they had no right to stop you, since you did nothing wrong? I say thanks for getting dangerous people off the streets, so me and my family can be safe. I'll do my part by reporting suspected drunk drivers, instead of "minding my own business" as people say.
I agree, this isnt Judge Dredd, they cant have all the power but if we step up and become more of a self policing society. There will less for the cops to have power over. Same for when i call the cops if i see someone traveling at high rate of speed on the highway. Sure 99% of the time nothing bad would happen but the 1% where an accident happens is too much.
I was trying to use a DUI checkstop as an example. Would you tell the cop they had no right to stop you, since you did nothing wrong? I say thanks for getting dangerous people off the streets, so me and my family can be safe. I'll do my part by reporting suspected drunk drivers, instead of "minding my own business" as people say.
I agree, this isnt Judge Dredd, they cant have all the power but if we step up and become more of a self policing society. There will less for the cops to have power over. Same for when i call the cops if i see someone traveling at high rate of speed on the highway. Sure 99% of the time nothing bad would happen but the 1% where an accident happens is too much.
I have a box cover on my truck too. It can't be opened without the tailgate being opened which requires it be unlocked, which it isn't.
Regardless, I wouldn't let them anyways, even if the tailgate was always unlocked. If I found it later, I would call and tell them I found a firearm that isn't mine in the back of my truck. In fact, I would much prefer it happen that way - if they found it in the back, you'd likely be charged and would have to defend yourself, because THEY found it. If you found it and reported it, then obviously you didn't steal it.
I'm not saying that they are the enemy, but one of their MAIN jobs is to investigate violations of the law and recommend/press charges based on those investigations. Why in God's name would you ever want to give them help? How do you know that you're honest decency is going to be rewarded with careful judgement and common sense?
I know CGN is pretty tinfoil hat/anti police, and I'm not trying to present that as an argument. What I'm saying is, I would simply prefer not to take the chance.
Not only that, but it's pretty well known that if you do not use your rights, you are demonstrating you have no need for them. Obviously you ought to use judgement in doing so, and might be well advised not to flaunt them in a way that is intentionally offensive. But to simply exercise your right not to be searched without just cause, I'm sorry but I'm going to stand by that. It isn't about getting in the police's way, or being "against" them, it's about my right to privacy, as well as ensuring that my freedom is not infringed upon. Who knows what would happen if you did let them search your truck and they found something they shouldn't - if you knew or didn't know it was there? Maybe some rounds fell out of your bag in the box of the truck, and you have loose ammo in there now (yes, that can result in charges, and it has on more than one occasion - in the glovebox, in the passenger area, in the box, it wouldn't matter - it can be considered a chargeable offense under Section 86 of the criminal code, and it has been considered that before to a number of people), or maybe there's some other reason. Regardless, why would you want to take the chance that something negative could come out of it for you, when the alternative is to politely and respectfully decline their request to search your vehicle, which is well within your rights, then when you get home, search it yourself and confirm there is nothing there. Heck, if it made you feel better, you could always tell the officers on scene "I'd prefer not to let you search my vehicle without just cause, but I'm happy to look through it for you, without you present, and I'll let you know if there's anything amiss" - nothing wrong with that legally, and you're helping their investigation while not putting yourself at risk for problems.
DUI check stops are authorized under the law, even though they DO technically violate our Charter, the courts have found they are a legal and justifiable violation of our rights (whether or not I agree with the courts is unimportant, the courts have decided therefore I have a legal obligation to comply unless or until the law is changed). So no, I would not tell them they had no right to stop me, because legally they do. But if I blew clean and they then asked to search my vehicle for open alcohol, I would ask them "can I ask what reason you have to believe I'm breaking the law" - if they had none, I would politely decline their request.
I too would report suspected drunk drivers, by the way. I have. My helping ensure our society is safe is not dependent on me giving up my rights. Two very different things. I would expect that the person who I called in about would expect his rights to be respected too - if they found there was no just cause to search his vehicle, or to get a breath sample (maybe they can't confirm it was the same guy I called in about, maybe I didn't get the full plate, who knows), then I would expect him not to submit and for the police to accept that.
I agree we should be more self-policing - that doesn't mean giving the police more power, however.
You are mixing up two VERY important things here. My wilingness to help the police find or convict a criminal who has legitimately caused harm to others by breaking the law, or who stands a significant risk of doing so by breaking the law, has nothing to do with me giving up my rights. If I saw someone breaking the law in a way that didn't cause any harm and stood no chance of doing so, I would keep going without looking twice (i.e. smoking a joint behind a building, or a friend accidentally left a round in his gun when he put it away in his car, whatever - I'm not calling the police just to be a do gooder - I'll call the police when it's something that actually has the potential to cause harm).
Not to mention, your examples have nothing to do with your own rights being violated. It would be your choice whether or not to permit a search of your car, or whether or not to permit the police to search your person if you are found to legally have a gun on you while walking to the range. If you felt that it was an acceptable violation of your rights, go for it. I wouldn't.
Finally, you just never know what the result is.
Explain to me what possible good things could come out of you allowing a police officer to search your car when he has no just cause to do so? Does it help catch the bad guy? Does it waste the officers, and your, time? Does it simply serve to make the officer 'feel better' that he has ensured you are not the bad guy?
Now think of the bad that could come out of it: you could have forgotten to put something away that you shouldn't have left out, you could have broken a minor law that resulted in no victims (i.e. you smoked a joint and left another one in your glovebox, not sure if you do that stuff, I don't, but many do, and it's a victimless "crime), someone could have stashed something illegal in your car without your knowledge, they could get the wrong individual when they look you up on the police database and waste your entire day arresting you on a warrant for the other guy, your passenger could have something illegal on him that you don't know about and you might be charged in connection with it, who knows. But the point is, NO good can come from you authorizing an unjustified search, and ONLY bad can come of it... unless you consider making the cop feel better a good thing, then you have to decide if that's worth it. Either way, you aren't "helping" his investigation - if you're innocent then him searching you will do nothing but waste both of your time, AT BEST.
Regardless, I wouldn't let them anyways, even if the tailgate was always unlocked. If I found it later, I would call and tell them I found a firearm that isn't mine in the back of my truck. In fact, I would much prefer it happen that way - if they found it in the back, you'd likely be charged and would have to defend yourself, because THEY found it. If you found it and reported it, then obviously you didn't steal it.
I'm not saying that they are the enemy, but one of their MAIN jobs is to investigate violations of the law and recommend/press charges based on those investigations. Why in God's name would you ever want to give them help? How do you know that you're honest decency is going to be rewarded with careful judgement and common sense?
I know CGN is pretty tinfoil hat/anti police, and I'm not trying to present that as an argument. What I'm saying is, I would simply prefer not to take the chance.
Not only that, but it's pretty well known that if you do not use your rights, you are demonstrating you have no need for them. Obviously you ought to use judgement in doing so, and might be well advised not to flaunt them in a way that is intentionally offensive. But to simply exercise your right not to be searched without just cause, I'm sorry but I'm going to stand by that. It isn't about getting in the police's way, or being "against" them, it's about my right to privacy, as well as ensuring that my freedom is not infringed upon. Who knows what would happen if you did let them search your truck and they found something they shouldn't - if you knew or didn't know it was there? Maybe some rounds fell out of your bag in the box of the truck, and you have loose ammo in there now (yes, that can result in charges, and it has on more than one occasion - in the glovebox, in the passenger area, in the box, it wouldn't matter - it can be considered a chargeable offense under Section 86 of the criminal code, and it has been considered that before to a number of people), or maybe there's some other reason. Regardless, why would you want to take the chance that something negative could come out of it for you, when the alternative is to politely and respectfully decline their request to search your vehicle, which is well within your rights, then when you get home, search it yourself and confirm there is nothing there. Heck, if it made you feel better, you could always tell the officers on scene "I'd prefer not to let you search my vehicle without just cause, but I'm happy to look through it for you, without you present, and I'll let you know if there's anything amiss" - nothing wrong with that legally, and you're helping their investigation while not putting yourself at risk for problems.
DUI check stops are authorized under the law, even though they DO technically violate our Charter, the courts have found they are a legal and justifiable violation of our rights (whether or not I agree with the courts is unimportant, the courts have decided therefore I have a legal obligation to comply unless or until the law is changed). So no, I would not tell them they had no right to stop me, because legally they do. But if I blew clean and they then asked to search my vehicle for open alcohol, I would ask them "can I ask what reason you have to believe I'm breaking the law" - if they had none, I would politely decline their request.
I too would report suspected drunk drivers, by the way. I have. My helping ensure our society is safe is not dependent on me giving up my rights. Two very different things. I would expect that the person who I called in about would expect his rights to be respected too - if they found there was no just cause to search his vehicle, or to get a breath sample (maybe they can't confirm it was the same guy I called in about, maybe I didn't get the full plate, who knows), then I would expect him not to submit and for the police to accept that.
I agree we should be more self-policing - that doesn't mean giving the police more power, however.
You are mixing up two VERY important things here. My wilingness to help the police find or convict a criminal who has legitimately caused harm to others by breaking the law, or who stands a significant risk of doing so by breaking the law, has nothing to do with me giving up my rights. If I saw someone breaking the law in a way that didn't cause any harm and stood no chance of doing so, I would keep going without looking twice (i.e. smoking a joint behind a building, or a friend accidentally left a round in his gun when he put it away in his car, whatever - I'm not calling the police just to be a do gooder - I'll call the police when it's something that actually has the potential to cause harm).
Not to mention, your examples have nothing to do with your own rights being violated. It would be your choice whether or not to permit a search of your car, or whether or not to permit the police to search your person if you are found to legally have a gun on you while walking to the range. If you felt that it was an acceptable violation of your rights, go for it. I wouldn't.
Finally, you just never know what the result is.
Explain to me what possible good things could come out of you allowing a police officer to search your car when he has no just cause to do so? Does it help catch the bad guy? Does it waste the officers, and your, time? Does it simply serve to make the officer 'feel better' that he has ensured you are not the bad guy?
Now think of the bad that could come out of it: you could have forgotten to put something away that you shouldn't have left out, you could have broken a minor law that resulted in no victims (i.e. you smoked a joint and left another one in your glovebox, not sure if you do that stuff, I don't, but many do, and it's a victimless "crime), someone could have stashed something illegal in your car without your knowledge, they could get the wrong individual when they look you up on the police database and waste your entire day arresting you on a warrant for the other guy, your passenger could have something illegal on him that you don't know about and you might be charged in connection with it, who knows. But the point is, NO good can come from you authorizing an unjustified search, and ONLY bad can come of it... unless you consider making the cop feel better a good thing, then you have to decide if that's worth it. Either way, you aren't "helping" his investigation - if you're innocent then him searching you will do nothing but waste both of your time, AT BEST.
I agree with your views. Stolen gun? No officer my truck has been locked and had no signs of anything being amiss. You cant search at this time. A crimial could be under my box liner? Sure take a look.
What good could come of it? Spider-man scenario.
I still see it as a inconvience. To me it sounds like a justifable search. My day isnt isnt so important that its worth the safety of others. Someone staches a gun in my truck to get later? You'll be able to prove it...hello lawsuit.
The tin hats are resevered for the internet. We have guys at our gun range that are throwing a fit since we put up security cameras. Saying the government and ramp are going to "hack" into the system to see what guns he has....like they dont have better ways of doing that or better things to do...(current government/gun laws only) not talking future...
What good could come of it? Spider-man scenario.
I still see it as a inconvience. To me it sounds like a justifable search. My day isnt isnt so important that its worth the safety of others. Someone staches a gun in my truck to get later? You'll be able to prove it...hello lawsuit.
The tin hats are resevered for the internet. We have guys at our gun range that are throwing a fit since we put up security cameras. Saying the government and ramp are going to "hack" into the system to see what guns he has....like they dont have better ways of doing that or better things to do...(current government/gun laws only) not talking future...
You just described C68 and all the ensuing aftermath of the last 20+ years in a nut shell.
