Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home

[Warhippy]

 

43 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

You are suggesting that a non-elected group who are anti-gun should determine what is appropriate for the citizens of this country to possess?     In the past, such decisions were made by committees that included input from the RCMP providing a balanced and common sense approach to the issue.  The RCMP even prior to being given authority to determine what should be allowed, made up charges or passed judgement on magazines etc. that were contrary to the legislation they were sworn to uphold.  I do not trust them to be unbiased judges on the issue and for me, this goes with any additional powers they are given that violate our constitutional rights.  

 

I am staggered by how many don't see the danger in granting the power to enter a home without cause in search of a crime as a danger to our society.  I guess it isn't an issue for them until they are the one being abused.

I'm, a law abiding citizen and gun owner.  I don't have any worries about my guns either.  Why?  because I don't drink and drive, I have locks and a safe I put my weapons in.  The Then Conservative government passed laws allowing the RCMP to do some fishy stuff with guns/gun owners.  Were you outraged then as well?

 

As for "constitutional right"

 

Before you attempt to claim you know what your rights, or mine are in anything.  I helps to know the actual laws

 

You don't have ANY right to own a gun in canada.  You have a legal privilege 

 

Are Canadian citizens allowed to own guns?

There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. ... Buyers in private sales ofweapons must pass official background checks. Canadian civilians aren't allowed to possess automatic weapons, handguns with a barrel shorter than 10.5 cm or any modified handgun, rifle or shotgun.

 

Do Canadians have the right to own guns?

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not. "Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms," the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

My mistake Jim,  I meant to say 120 round magazine is legal and 25 is not.  But not all 25 round magazines.  

The bigger issue as it relates to this thread is that the RCMP have applied guidelines in this case that contravene the legislation as written.  I am with Deb in that I do not believe giving too much discretionary authority to our police is a way to safeguard our democracy.  It may lead to some increased safety/oversight but it comes at the erosion of our rights and at the very real risk of potential abuse by individuals who are only different than the rest of us by way of a 6 month training course and the uniform they wear.  They still have biases, hold grudges, can be frustrated and vengeful, mean and cruel like the rest of society.   The opportunity for major injustices and abuse is far too great in this kind of legislation.  

yeah that is possible. 

 

My guess at this moment would be that the roadside check for any reason will stand for sure, the home checks may not. Maybe thats a reasonable split. But I would really hate to see someone get away with the bolus drinking defence ever again though. 

 

 

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

I don't see this holding up for long, it will just create so many court cases that they won't be able to handle. The only way this can work at Bars or Restaurants is if they catch them before entering the place or after entering their car. If you just randomly enter a bar or restaurant and give someone a breathalyzer and say you're impaired you can't drive, well thanks sherlock who said I was going to drive. 

 

This one regarding your home seems fishy, because I thought technically without a search warrant they can't physically enter your home, and I doubt they would be able to get one in time to prove anything, but chances are they would ignore the search warrant and then again the court cases would pile up again. And what if you live in an apartment or something and multiple people have the same vehicle how can they prove who is who, or heck maybe it was your significant other driving instead, to many what ifs imo don't see this lasting.

[DIBdaQUIB]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

I'm, a law abiding citizen and gun owner.  I don't have any worries about my guns either.  Why?  because I don't drink and drive, I have locks and a safe I put my weapons in.  The Then Conservative government passed laws allowing the RCMP to do some fishy stuff with guns/gun owners.  Were you outraged then as well?

 

As for "constitutional right"

 

Before you attempt to claim you know what your rights, or mine are in anything.  I helps to know the actual laws

 

You don't have ANY right to own a gun in canada.  You have a legal privilege 

 

Are Canadian citizens allowed to own guns?

There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. ... Buyers in private sales ofweapons must pass official background checks. Canadian civilians aren't allowed to possess automatic weapons, handguns with a barrel shorter than 10.5 cm or any modified handgun, rifle or shotgun.

 

Do Canadians have the right to own guns?

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not. "Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms," the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.

You're confusing my arguments here.  I never said we have a right to own firearms.  The gun comments/observations are an example of how the RCMP misuse their position to make determinations while ignoring the actual legislation they are supposed to enforce and how their right to enter any gun owner's home without cause or a warrant is an abuse of our rights.    When one considers the police lack the legislative backing to do the same to suspected criminals, I have to question why you are not concerned. 

 

My concerns with the DUI laws are around the police being given authority to make determinations on guilt without a crime being committed and to enter homes without warrant.  To me, these are contrary to our constitutional rights and a slippery slope just begging for abuses.  

 

 

[Gurn]

thing about them coming to your house is they don't need proof you were in you car, just a report from someone.

Got a neighbour you don't like, buy a burner phone and call in a report about him. won't matter if the guy left the house at all that day.

Cops knock on the door, come in and do a breathalyser, it shows you haven't been drinking. But don't think the cops are not looking at everything in your house while they are there.

I think the quickest way to get the law changed is to buy a burner phone and start reporting that you saw your Mayor, MLA, judge, MP and the local duty sergeant driving erratically.

Get those with power to feel the pain and they will change that law pronto.

[DIBdaQUIB]

9 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

 

 

This one regarding your home seems fishy, because I thought technically without a search warrant they can't physically enter your home,

The government has already implemented legislation that gives the police this power over legal gun owners even if there is no suspicion of a crime or wrong-doing.  A precedent has been set and as many of us said when it first became law ….If government can get away with this, they will expand it down the road.  Slippery slope indeed.

[DIBdaQUIB]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah that is possible. 

 

My guess at this moment would be that the roadside check for any reason will stand for sure, the home checks may not. Maybe thats a reasonable split. But I would really hate to see someone get away with the bolus drinking defence ever again though. 

 

 

You are likely right in what will survive challenge.  I am not as against the roadside requirements as I am the home invasion.  It opens the door for governments to expand the reasons exponentially and if so, how do we become any different than Eastern Germany under the Stasi?   Exaggeration I know, at least at this stage but all these violations of rights start small. 

Ultimately, the argument can be made that all crime could be greatly reduced if the police had the rights to pursue whatever line of investigation they chose whenever they feel a crime is being committed or even contemplated. Not so far fetched for a government that through its gun laws has shown a willingness to make criminals out of citizens that have committed no crime.

[Gurn]

I will add:

This law, along with the liberals not proceeding with electoral reform has put my vote up for grabs. Well done Justin.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

13 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

The government has already implemented legislation that gives the police this power over legal gun owners even if there is no suspicion of a crime or wrong-doing.  A precedent has been set and as many of us said when it first became law ….If government can get away with this, they will expand it down the road.  Slippery slope indeed.

I see interesting, well good thing I don't drink or own a gun then 

[DIBdaQUIB]

7 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

I see interesting, well good thing I don't drink or own a gun then 

You are a model citizen

[Gurn]

11 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

I see interesting, well good thing I don't drink or own a gun then 

So you say, in public.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

1 minute ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

You are a model citizen

Now if they implement this rule for marijuana then I'll be a little more upset 

[King Heffy]

14 minutes ago, gurn said:

I will add:

This law, along with the liberals not proceeding with electoral reform has put my vote up for grabs. Well done Justin.

Mine as well, although the only alternatives that don't completely violate my beliefs are the NDP or Greens.

[DIBdaQUIB]

Just now, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Now if they implement this rule for marijuana then I'll be a little more upset 

Stay posted and be prepared to be very upset.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

So you say, in public.

Lol no it's true I gave up drinking roughly 10-12 years ago didn't enjoy it anymore, and never have wanted a gun ever, I don't mind shooting them, but not interested in owning one.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

1 minute ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Stay posted and be prepared to be very upset.

Lol yeah wouldn't surprise me if they allow this sadly.

[Squamfan]

5 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

This is a total violation of civil liberties. The fact that the Liberal government and the Minister of Justice think this is a solution is frightening. Jody Wilson-Raybould is an abject failure in her position if this fascist decision is best solution that she could come up with for "road deaths".

 

Seriously, Canada is a total joke from a justice perspective. Dangerous offenders get out of jail even when they are determined to still pose a risk to the public, but the Liberal government thinks it's perfectly fine to allow police access to private residences without a warrant, merely on hunch.

 

While I'm not hoping for Scheer and his gutless cronies to take power, I'm done with Turdeau and his band of thieves.

 

 

Wonder if this applies to her kind of people. We all know natives are going to B***H and moan if the police come anywhere near their homes or reserves, and say they taking away our rights and freedom.

[Gurn]

3 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

We all know natives are going to B***H and moan if the police come anywhere near their homes or reserves, and say they taking away our rights and freedom.

And they would be right to say it.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

Wonder if this applies to her kind of people. We all know natives are going to B***H and moan if the police come anywhere near their homes or reserves, and say they taking away our rights and freedom.

We all know how the RCMP deal with issues on native land.

[-DLC-]

The thing is, if police were infallible, fine.  They're not...far from it.  And that's where the issue lies...in that, they'll be able to randomly target people without any reason.

 

So what if that same asshat cop who pulled me over (on my first day of my new job!) and decided to delay things (as he did) foot drags and takes his time if I have to be at work?  Is that fair?  I haven't done anything and now I'm going to be reprimanded at work.  I was speeding, so accepted that fate.  But if I'm doing nothing more than driving to work, why should I have to engage in this process?  

 

I'm all for eliminating drunk driving but not at the expense of our rights and freedoms.  If I'm going about my business and have done nothing wrong, I really don't want the police interfering in that.

 

How about stationing police outside bars at closing (randomly)?

 

The horse racing track always has drunks leaving the parking lot...go there (too).  Never see cops checking on people.

 

So rather than targeting innocent people, how about first trying to target those who blatantly drink and drive right out of these establishments.  Seems targeting everyone rather than honing in on places where people drink (then drive) is time consuming and not as efficient.

 

Liquor stores late night would be a good place to start.    Fishing in a large pool rather than concentrating their efforts on obvious drinking establishments seems like wasted resources and energy.