Missing C-8, if found please return to CPS

[The Ditch]

im sure if someone said no they'd give a hearty chuckle and wave them on their way, definitely.

[NuclearFart]

Questions for someone who knows more about guns:

1) if you are just taking it "home to clean", why would you take it home loaded and with the magazines?

2) I can't imagine this rifle gets a ton of use, do these things need to be cleaned that often and so urgently that it couldn't wait until at work the next day?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Questions for someone who knows more about guns:

1) if you are just taking it "home to clean", why would you take it home loaded and with the magazines?

No idea. Bullets aren't necessary accessories to clean your gun.

2) I can't imagine this rifle gets a ton of use, do these things need to be cleaned that often and so urgently that it couldn't wait until at work the next day?

No.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Questions for someone who knows more about guns:

1) if you are just taking it "home to clean", why would you take it home loaded and with the magazines?

2) I can't imagine this rifle gets a ton of use, do these things need to be cleaned that often and so urgently that it couldn't wait until at work the next day?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No idea. Bullets aren't necessary accessories to clean your gun.


No.

I might have caused the confusion over ammo. I do not believe there was any ammo involved or being transported. I mistakenly thought that, but no longer believe it to be the case, unless someonelese has proof.


Also, it is standard practice and proper to clean the magazine(s) when you clean the weapon, at least that is what I was taught.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I might have caused the confusion over ammo. I do not believe there was any ammo involved or being transported. I mistakenly thought that, but no longer believe it to be the case, unless someonelese has proof.


Also, it is standard practice and proper to clean the magazine(s) when you clean the weapon, at least that is what I was taught.

It looks like there was confusion in the press regarding the mags, the original articles claim they were loaded and the updated ones make no mention of it. As for cleaning, I clean after each range trip, regardless of the type of ammo used that time.

The one thing I'm a bit puzzled about is that they are calling them 28 round mags, I thought the C8 was a 30 round mag, unless the CPS short loads them for some reason.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I might have caused the confusion over ammo. I do not believe there was any ammo involved or being transported. I mistakenly thought that, but no longer believe it to be the case, unless someonelese has proof.


Also, it is standard practice and proper to clean the magazine(s) when you clean the weapon, at least that is what I was taught.

Hmm.

Yeah, maybe makes sense to bring home unloaded mags for cleaning, but again, don't know why he'd be bringing that firearm home for cleaning. Presumably it's used at a range where there would be appropriate facilities. Don't know specifics but hard to imagine CPS doesn't have an armoury where these things are dealt with.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It looks like there was confusion in the press regarding the mags, the original articles claim they were loaded and the updated ones make no mention of it.

The one thing I'm a bit puzzled about is that they are calling them 28 round mags, I thought the C8 was a 30 round mag, unless the CPS short loads them for some reason.

I thought they were 30 round mags too but I'm unfamiliar with the weapon in question.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

im sure if someone said no they'd give a hearty chuckle and wave them on their way, definitely.

According to people that were there, if they said they weren't comfortable it was a quick flashlight check through the windows and along your way.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It looks like there was confusion in the press regarding the mags, the original articles claim they were loaded and the updated ones make no mention of it. As for cleaning, I clean after each range trip, regardless of the type of ammo used that time.

The one thing I'm a bit puzzled about is that they are calling them 28 round mags, I thought the C8 was a 30 round mag, unless the CPS short loads them for some reason.

We use to only load 28 rounds in, especially if we didn't know when we would be firing our weapons. It is easier on the spring and avoids undue stress on the spring (at least that was the story).

Also reduces stopages due to missfeeds.

When overseas we would unload the mag, take it apart and "stretch" the spring out when cleaning the weapon.

Two rounds won't make the difference.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hmm.

Yeah, maybe makes sense to bring home unloaded mags for cleaning, but again, don't know why he'd be bringing that firearm home for cleaning. Presumably it's used at a range where there would be appropriate facilities. Don't know specifics but hard to imagine CPS doesn't have an armoury where these things are dealt with.
.

Bang on Flash (no pun). I to wonder why he would bring it home to clean. It seems the CPS is wondering the same thing.

I do know that a properly lubricated weapon will sweat while it sits in lock up. Again, it was common to give our weapons a quick pull through/wipe down when we got them out of the armoury.

You could make cleaning a weapon a full time job, they are always "dirty".

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

im sure if someone said no they'd give a hearty chuckle and wave them on their way, definitely.

As stated by Btimbit if you said no they just looked through the windows.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Weitz

As stated by Btimbit if you said no they just looked through the windows.

And further, again according to someone that was there, if you did consent to the search it was a brief visual check of the trunk. That's it. Didn't even look in the spare tire compartment. It took seconds, not minutes.

Yeah it's uncomfortable and annoying, and yes sometimes people are legally detained and turn out to be innocent, it sucks but it's nothing new. Otherwise a criminal would be able to just say "No" to a search and get away. Lets not forget that other than whining on social media, no formal complaints have come from this. I seriously doubt anyone was pulled from their vehicle while officers cut open the seats and planted cocaine, but that's how people made it sound

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It is easier on the spring and avoids undue stress on the spring (at least that was the story).

Interesting to hear the Forces stance on this as I've heard the exact opposite. It's the compressing, uncompressing of the spring that causes them to lose there springiness. Fully compressed for long periods of time apparently has no ill effects. Or so the manufacturers say anyways. Haven't has that type of rifle long enough to know for sure.

[worth]

We loaded 30 full rounds in the mid 2000's. Never once only loaded 28.

[cznTiburon]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

The media is focusing on the weapon transport and loss of weapon, but not on the illegal search and seizure the police setup after the fact. There was a perimeter setup and vehicles were being searched without legal concern.

As per the reddit poster:

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.
Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states:
Any property found or seized by means of a violation of section 8 can be excluded as evidence in a trial under section 24(2).

So here you have the office on duty, the sergeant on duty and this must have gone up the channels showing a police service that clearly doesn't understand the above. In the interest of violating charter law to recover their gun.

The media isn't talking about this at all.

While that section protects you against unlawful search and seizure the problem with that reddit thread is there are too many "fight the power" sovereign citizen types. What the police did was stop cars from leaving and requested to perform a quick search. There is nothing unlawful regarding that and if people said they were uncomfortable with it then the search was not conducted. The people would not be detained for saying no as the officers involved know their powers to search and what would be deemed unlawful. The service knows the laws and demonstrated their abilities in accordance with the law. If they demand a search without and arrest them that is a violation of the charter but in no way that night does it appear that anyone had their charter rights violated. This is what I gathered from reading the reddit posters who were actually there, rather than focus on the idiotic posts on that thread making vast assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Interesting to hear the Forces stance on this as I've heard the exact opposite. It's the compressing, uncompressing of the spring that causes them to lose there springiness. Fully compressed for long periods of time apparently has no ill effects. Or so the manufacturers say anyways. Haven't has that type of rifle long enough to know for sure.

Originally Posted by worth

We loaded 30 full rounds in the mid 2000's. Never once only loaded 28.

Couple of things that might affect my experience, it was early in the life of the rifle (93), it was the plastic mags, the operation had strict ROE's so it was not always easy to engage or discharge your weapon.

Also, this was the army, the CSM, might just have been odd, although I believe it was a battalion wide practice on my tour. The RSM was definitely a wing-nut.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by cznTiburon

While that section protects you against unlawful search and seizure the problem with that reddit thread is there are too many "fight the power" sovereign citizen types. What the police did was stop cars from leaving and requested to perform a quick search. There is nothing unlawful regarding that and if people said they were uncomfortable with it then the search was not conducted. The people would not be detained for saying no as the officers involved know their powers to search and what would be deemed unlawful. The service knows the laws and demonstrated their abilities in accordance with the law. If they demand a search without and arrest them that is a violation of the charter but in no way that night does it appear that anyone had their charter rights violated. This is what I gathered from reading the reddit posters who were actually there, rather than focus on the idiotic posts on that thread making vast assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

Something still seems very fishy about how the police acted. When you really think about it a voluntary search road block makes zero sense. The only people who are going to accept a voluntary search of their vehicle is people who have not just stolen something from the area.

"Sir, can we see inside your trunk?"

"Go right ahead officer"

"Found it!!"

"****, I should have said no to this voluntary search, but instead I said yes, and now I'm busted!!"

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Something still seems very fishy about how the police acted. When you really think about it a voluntary search road block makes zero sense. The only people who are going to accept a voluntary search of their vehicle is people who have not just stolen something from the area.

"Sir, can we see inside your trunk?"

"Go right ahead officer"

"Found it!!"

"****, I should have said no to this voluntary search, but instead I said yes, and now I'm busted!!"

Did they describe it as voluntary?

Not that I have a problem with it, but what exactly makes it different in principle to a roadside drinking and driving checkstop?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Did they describe it as voluntary?

Not that I have a problem with it, but what exactly makes it different in principle to a roadside drinking and driving checkstop?

Because it was utterly pointless. A checkstop is one thing because a cop would be able to smell the alcohol on the drivers breath without even touching the vehicle, instant probable cause.

It's beyond dumb to think that if they actually had the guy who swiped the rifle in front of them, that he would willingly consent to a search of his vehicle. Why on Gods green earth would he?

To me it just seems like doing something for the sake of doing something and saying "Hey, we tried".

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Because it was utterly pointless. A checkstop is one thing because a cop would be able to smell the alcohol on the drivers breath without even touching the vehicle, instant probable cause.

It's beyond dumb to think that if they actually had the guy who swiped the rifle in front of them, that he would willingly consent to a search of his vehicle. Why on Gods green earth would he?

To me it just seems like doing something for the sake of doing something and saying "Hey, we tried".

Desperation will make people (Cops) do strange things. I reckon they knew there was a #### up, big time, and hope to nip it in the bud.


I am interested to see how this story develops.

[cznTiburon]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Because it was utterly pointless. A checkstop is one thing because a cop would be able to smell the alcohol on the drivers breath without even touching the vehicle, instant probable cause.

It's beyond dumb to think that if they actually had the guy who swiped the rifle in front of them, that he would willingly consent to a search of his vehicle. Why on Gods green earth would he?

To me it just seems like doing something for the sake of doing something and saying "Hey, we tried".

My guess is this is the immediate reaction before they had done anything else like review CCTV. If they feel like it's only been 5-10 minutes there is a good chance to find it. The case these things are kept in is huge and possible that it could be thrown on a back seat rather than in a trunk. I am not saying this tactic is flawless or that the odds were in their favour but this is an immediate reaction to a ####ty problem and it makes more sense to make this attempt rather then say "whoops, well we will look at cameras that are probably pretty awful and that's it"