Bill C-21 will allow police officers to enter a home without a warrant to “search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.”
Note the legislation does not say the subject of these invasive measures must be a gun owner. All that’s required to set this train wreck in motion is for someone to lodge a complaint.
When the state can enter your home – “search for and seize any such thing” – without a warrant, we no longer live in a nation of laws. We live in a nation of cancel culture, wokeness and second-class citizens where anyone, not just firearm owners, can be attacked using this provision.
I'm not familiar with the legislation, but in general Canadians seem wayyyy too quick to give up freedoms in the name of X that the government wants (and Im not even talking about guns at all).
All these bills (religion one, conversion therapy, etc) seem to have a number of clauses that should give us Canadians cause for concern given they may provide broader concessions of liberty under the guise of "social good".
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
"Such thing" refers to a specific thing: i.e. "any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance" that a judge has deemed presents a danger to a person.
So... someone would have to persuade a judge that I present a danger by owning such an item, then the cop would have to believe that I actually have such a thing (and accept having to justify that decision in court after), and that it would be impractical to get a warrant (i.e. that I present an imminent danger) and then the state can enter my house.
I dunno, that looks like a law to me.
More context:
Spoiler!
Quote:
4 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 110:
Application for emergency prohibition order
110.#1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.
Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.
Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.
Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.
Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.
Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.
Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.#2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.
rooster's post is copied verbatim from the "Canadian Institute for Legislative Action", the lobbying arm of the Canadian Sports Shooting Association (CSSA); the Canadian equivalent of the NRA (and the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action...).
Not that I think Bill C-21 is good policy—I think it actually does overreach, will be almost entirely ineffectual, and is quite dumb—but the CSSA-CILA's alarmist take on it is nonsense. The actual text of the bill can be found here: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading
The gist of the part of the bill in question is it would add a new section to the Criminal Code, allowing anyone to petition a provincial court judge to get an "emergency prohibition order" that prohibits someone from possessing "any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made."
The CSSA-CILA is selectively quoting the proposed paragraph 110.1(5), which says:
Quote:
If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.
So no, it's not a blanket allowance for warrantless searches and seizures, it's very specifically in the case of someone who has already had an "emergency prohibition order" issued against them by a judge, and the "things" in question are the "firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance" that are specified in that court order.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
Bill C-21 died on the order paper when the last election was called...it has no status, and if the government wants to pass similar measures they have to reintroduce the bill.
If and until that happens this is a complete nothing burger.
__________________
"The Oilers are like a buffet with one tray of off-brand mac-and-cheese and the rest of it is weird Jell-O."
Greg Wyshynski, ESPN
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Julio For This Useful Post:
Of course you all realise the cops can already enter your house without a warrant and take any gun or other weapon if they believe you present an immediate danger to yourself or anyone else.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
So no, it's not a blanket allowance for warrantless searches and seizures, it's very specifically in the case of someone who has already had an "emergency prohibition order" issued against them by a judge, and the "things" in question are the "firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance" that are specified in that court order.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarrification. So basically how I understand all of this is that rooster is a liar and this thread is trash.
Police will be able to walk right in your house!!
