Three in Dawson Creek Face Firearms Charges
Thursday, July 19, 2012 @ 3:44 AM
Dawson Creek, B.C.- Three Dawson Creek area men are facing a string of charges in the wake of a firearms incident.
On Saturday, July 14th 2012, Dawson Creek RCMP members conducting routine patrols in the South Dawson Pits, came across three males firing assault rifles at abandoned vehicles.
Police announced themselves via loud speaker and requested the firearms be put down so that police could approach. One male complied with the request, two others fled the scene in a pickup truck, taking one assault rifle with them. Given the nature of the firearms and the possibility that the firearm was prohibited, police set up containment of the area.
Police located the suspect vehicle on a bush trail, along with 1400 rounds of ammunition. A short time later police recovered the second assault rifle and the two males were arrested.
A 34 year old male is facing charges of possession of a prohibited device.
A 26 year old male is facing charges of flight from police, obstruction of justice, and possession of a prohibited device.
A 28 year old male is facing charges of possession of a prohibited device, obstruction of justice, flight from police, possession of a firearm without holding a valid license and possession of a weapon contrary to order.
Police also seized two semi automatic assault rifles. Both rifles had prohibited magazines capable of holding 25 rounds.
Comments
Assault rifles?
It would be nice to know what the prohibited devices are and what the makes and models of all the firearms are. You are permitted to have a 25 round magazine for your semi auto rifle but must have it modified to only hold 5 rounds. Were these 25 round mags modified or wide open? A 25 round mag that is modified is still capable of holding 25 rounds, but with very little work.
Of course the RCMP are going to report these stories in such a way as to portray all guns as evil. All but their own.
for sure dragonmaster, cause law abiding gun owners flee from the police when they show up. If the guns were legit and they weren’t prohibited from possessing them, then they had nothing to worry about. I doubt that they magazines only held 5 rounds if they were charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.
Again lets blame the RCMP members who are out there doing good work. Bad bad police men keeping me safe…Good work boys and keep it up.
I am very glad that these individuals were apprehended safely. I think nearly everyone with any interest in guns knows that assault rifles with large clips are prohibited.
You don’t run when police announce themselves…..unless you have something to hide. 1400 rounds of ammo? I think that’s a little over the top too.
I am just very glad that some concerned citizen took it upon themselves to report these fellows. Maybe they were just out for sport but then again, maybe not.
Who is blaming the RCMP for doing their job whatthe??? Do you see someone blaming the RCMP?
I don’t think anyone but you see’s anyone doing that.
You say…”I doubt that they magazines only held 5 rounds if they were charged with possession of a prohibited weapon”.
Who was charged with “possession of a prohibited weapon” whatthe???
Give more says…”I am very glad that these individuals were apprehended safely”.
Me too Give more.
Then you say…”I think nearly everyone with any interest in guns knows that assault rifles with large clips are prohibited”.
Really?
Heres a link for you Give more. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm
Maybe do some learnin before stating things that are incorrect.
“You don’t run when police announce themselves…..unless you have something to hide”.
Agreed!
“1400 rounds of ammo? I think that’s a little over the top too”.
In your uneducated opinion perhaps. 1400 is peanuts.
“I am just very glad that some concerned citizen took it upon themselves to report these fellows”
What concerned citizen reported them? Maybe you should read the story.
Dragonmaster,
Maybe you should read the Criminal Code….find the section for possession of a prohibited device, it doesn’t exist. It is Section 92 of the Criminal Code, Possession of a Prohibited Weapon.
Sooooo to answer your question all 3 were charged.
And your comment ” Of course the RCMP are going to report these stories in such a way as to portray all guns as evil. All but their own.” makes it sound like you are blaming the RCMP for reporting this story.
But I digress you are the most educated person on here and I don’t have the time nor the desire to spend hours posting comments on every story…..just like commenting on certain idiots rants.
whatthe??,
Maybe you should read the story above… it
says they are charged with possession of a prohibited device. Read the story chump. It doesn’t say Possession of a Prohibited Weapon.
Makes it sound like I’m blaming the RCMP for reporting this story???
Get a grip man!
Apparently a lot more educated than you pal!
Do you mean this section 92?
The one that does in fact state “possession of a prohibited device”.
“92. Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized
92. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.
Possession of prohibited weapon, DEVICE or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, A PROHIBITED DEVICE, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.
Exceptions
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to
(a) a person who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition while the person is under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who may lawfully possess it, for the purpose of using it in a manner in which the supervising person may lawfully use it; or
(b) a person who comes into possession of a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition by the operation of law and who, within a reasonable period after acquiring possession of it,
(i) lawfully disposes of it, or
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a firearm, a registration certificate for the firearm.
Borrowed firearm for sustenance
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who possesses a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm and who is not the holder of a registration certificate for the firearm if the person
(a) has borrowed the firearm;
(b) is the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(c) is in possession of the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain the person or the personâs family.
Evidence for previous conviction
(6) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1), evidence that the person was convicted of an offence under subsection 112(1) of the Firearms Act is admissible at any stage of the proceedings and may be taken into consideration for the purpose of proving that the person knew that the person was not the holder of a registration certificate for the firearm to which the offence relates.
Doofus!
Comments for this article are closed.