CBSA and sidearms

Discussion for firearms and less-lethal equipment.
User avatar
Toonces
King Poobah
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Toonces » Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:12 pm

I think they should be armed and held to the same standard as police officers in regards to use-of-force.
I will NOT respond to PMs from those not belonging to the private side.

OnTalyn
Seasoned Member
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: B.C.
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby OnTalyn » Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:42 pm

WorkingOnIt wrote:I think they should be armed and held to the same standard as police officers in regards to use-of-force.

They are.
CBSA uses the exact same IMIM as the RCMP and is held to the standards set by the CC for use of force by PO.
RCMP designed UofF trainig course and RCMP Designed Firearms training.

User avatar
Toonces
King Poobah
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Toonces » Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:46 pm

I was offering my opinion, not implying anything otherwise.
I will NOT respond to PMs from those not belonging to the private side.

User avatar
Toonces
King Poobah
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Toonces » Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:12 pm

:drinking: :drinking: :drinking:

Thank you! :twisted:
I will NOT respond to PMs from those not belonging to the private side.

Drache
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:40 pm
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Drache » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:42 pm

Can anyone clarify for me the laws concerning and governing Reservations? Everyone is telling me that the RCMP and other Federal Law Enforcement and such have no legal authority on Reservations and can only go onto them with permission from the people on the Reservation themselves (council, chief, or whatever). I know NOTHING on this matter besides personally seeing more than a few officers serve warrants, conduct raids, etc on the Reservation near my parent's farm.

Normally I wouldn't argue with someone like this except:
1) He's talking about the CBSA (I may not be one but I certainly care how people talk about them)
2) He's telling people he's in Law Enforcement

User avatar
th
Veteran Member
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:50 pm
Location: British Paraguay
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby th » Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:52 pm

Drache wrote:Can anyone clarify for me the laws concerning and governing Reservations? Everyone is telling me that the RCMP and other Federal Law Enforcement and such have no legal authority on Reservations and can only go onto them with permission from the people on the Reservation themselves (council, chief, or whatever). I know NOTHING on this matter besides personally seeing more than a few officers serve warrants, conduct raids, etc on the Reservation near my parent's farm.

Normally I wouldn't argue with someone like this except:
1) He's talking about the CBSA (I may not be one but I certainly care how people talk about them)
2) He's telling people he's in Law Enforcement

Friendly advice: don't argue with idiots. They'll only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Same goes for drunks.

This knob isn't in LE and s/he has no clue what they're talking about.
:wave:

Borderwatchman
Grand Poobah
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Borderwatchman » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:04 pm

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-five_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1982][/url]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reserve



Land Rights of Native People

Parliament also has the power to make laws in relation to "lands reserved for the Indians," and the federal government has the power to bargain with native groups for the release of native land rights. Under Canadian CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, once such a release is given those lands are subject to the general provincial ownership of crown lands and natural resources and the federal government loses all rights to deal with such lands on behalf of the natives. Even the clear provisions of the Indian Act dealing with federal management of surrendered Indian reserve lands cannot operate unless there is a federal-provincial agreement in place concerning the status of the surrendered lands.
Such agreements have been made with NS, NB, Ontario and BC, and by the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which affects Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are no special arrangements with Québec, PEI or Nfld; none are required for the territories which are under federal jurisdiction.

The land rights of native peoples are largely undefined, but they have been described as "usufructuary," referring to a Roman law right to use land owned by another; in this case it is the native right to use lands technically owned by the Crown. Native rights to land as defined by the Indian Act are communal in nature, belonging to the group rather than the individual member, and cannot be bargained away except by the group to the Crown in right of Canada (see INDIAN RESERVE).

Hunting and Fishing Rights

In those areas where these harvesting rights are not assured by treaty, native peoples can rely upon constitutional protection for their aboriginal rights to hunt and fish. In the Prairie provinces, in order to consolidate treaty promises, the Constitution Act of 1930, guaranteed Indians the right to hunt and fish for food, free of provincial regulation, on unoccupied crown lands and other lands to which they have a right of access. Métis have generally failed in their attempts to claim these rights. Inuit harvesting has rarely been regulated.
It remains unclear to what extent native harvesting can be engaged in for commercial purposes. Agawa (1988) and Jones (1993) affirmed treaty rights to fish commercially while Horseman (1990) held that commercial harvesting rights in the prairie provinces, while previously confirmed by treaty, were extinguished by the Constitution Act of 1930. The extent of aboriginal (nontreaty) rights to harvest for sale or barter is an issue that, in 1996, is expected to be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada in a number of fishing cases on appeal from BC.


Taxation

Under the Indian Act the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve lands and the personal property of Indians or bands situated on a reserve are exempt from taxation. Complex questions have arisen in applying this provision to sales and income taxes. Williams (1992) held that income taxes are not payable by Indians if their income is sufficiently connected to a reserve to be deemed property situated on-reserve. Subsequent changes to Revenue Canada's collection procedures remain controversial. Generally, the same principles are applied in respect to goods or services otherwise subject to the GST, a federal tax. Although some provinces recognize specific exemptions for reserve residents or for on-reserve purchases by Indians, the limits of provincial powers to tax Indians are circumscribed, constitutionally, by the ascendant federal restrictions set out in the Indian Act.
There is no special exemption from customs and excise duties, notwithstanding provision in JAY'S TREATY (1794) and the Treaty of GHENT (1814) that Indians could cross the Canada-US border freely with their goods. In the Francis Case (1956) the Supreme Court of Canada held that these were not Indian treaties and that, while they were international treaties, they had not been given legislative force within Canada.

Native groups can be expected to advocate extended tax exemptions in the course of constitutional and land-claims negotiations. In the 1996 agreement to settle the Nisga'a claim, however, the Indian claimants agreed to limit and eventually eliminate some of their protection from provincial taxation. BC is expected to make the same demand of other claimants in the context of the treaty process in that province.

Where Are Reserves?

Reserves are lands set aside for the exclusive use of status INDIANS and only status Indians can "own" land on a reserve, but not all Indian bands have reserves. Many communities prefer the term First Nation rather than Band in self-reference, however BAND is the term used by the federal government to describe "a body of Indians" in a community, residing on one or more reserves. In 1982 there were 577 Bands in Canada and the number has gradually grown to 615 in 2006. A majority of bands in Canada have fewer than 1000 members; in 2006 there were approximately 748 400 registered Indians in the 615 bands. The 2 largest Bands are the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mohawks of Akwesasne, both located in Ontario, and together they have more than 32 600 members.
In June 1985 Parliament passed Bill C-31, which, among other changes to the INDIAN ACT, removed some discriminatory clauses and allowed many disenfranchised people to claim Indian status. Between 1982 and 2005 the number of registered Indians in Canada more than doubled. In the NWT, Nunavut and the Yukon, where few reserves have been established, the bands have been gathered into communities known as settlements, which are generally on CROWN LAND, but these bands and settlements do not have reserve status. There are reserves in most parts of southern Canada, but about 56% of the Indian population lives on reserves in areas designated "rural" or "remote" (see NATIVE PEOPLE, DEMOGRAPHY). By the end of 2005 approximately 53% of Aboriginal people lived on reserves, 3% lived on Crown Land, and 44% lived off reserve.

The Indian Act stipulates that only registered band members may reside permanently on a reserve unless the band has adopted a residency bylaw that regulates the right to live on the reserve. About 40% of bands control their membership lists. Many bands have leased or otherwise disposed of portions of their reserve lands to non-Indians for various purposes including natural-resource exploitation, rights of way for transportation or transmission, farming, ranching, and recreational land use. Within the reserve, the band may lease the land and use it to develop economic opportunities for band members. Reserve bylaws only apply within the boundaries of the reserve, however, most provincial laws apply to the residents of the reserve. Generally, provincial laws govern all residents of that province or territory, on and off a reserve.

Although many Indians believe that reserves are legally their property, the Indian Act states that the title to reserves is vested with the Crown. This legal relationship with the federal government concerns Indians, who believe that the status of Indian lands is in jeopardy as long as legal title remains outside Indian control. The Indian Act forbids the "surrender" and sale of reserve land by an Indian or a band to anyone other than the Crown.

Individual Indians who occupy particular plots of land in a reserve cannot obtain an ordinary deed or title to the land, but they may acquire certificates of possession (CPs) giving them varying degrees of protection from claims by other parties. This individual title or "location" may be transferred among members of the same band. Land in a reserve that is not assigned to individuals is held as common property for the benefit of the entire band.

Social conditions in most reserves reflect the historical and political neglect that Canada has shown toward people of Indian ancestry (see NATIVE PEOPLE, SOCIAL CONDITIONS). The isolated and remote locations of most reserves have contributed to the high rate of unemployment among Indians (see NATIVE PEOPLE, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS).

User avatar
RGW
Grand Poobah
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby RGW » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:43 am

You can't enforce Canadian law on a native reservation. If you are wanted for a crime, the RCMP can not enter the reserve to arrest you.



:crazy:

Borderwatchman
Grand Poobah
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Borderwatchman » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:22 pm

I'll do you one better. I remember a uniformed...ahem..."officer" telling me Canada rents the land from the natives. I could've thrown all my political science and law text books at him and he'd still be stuck in his ignorant ways. I didn't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for him.

User avatar
Pete Broccolo
Moderator
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Weyburn SK Canada
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Pete Broccolo » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:03 pm

RGW wrote:
You can't enforce Canadian law on a native reservation. If you are wanted for a crime, the RCMP can not enter the reserve to arrest you.

:crazy:

Man, you mean all my enforcement / arrests I conducted / made on the Montreal Lake FN (Summer 1976), in the Green Lake area (Fall 1976 / Spring 1977), on James Smith FN (pick a date between July 1985 and Aug 1993) and at White Bear, Ocean Man and Standing Buffalo FN (August 2001 to date), PLUS a certain Jr Cst's, and his partners, work over on the Onion Lake FN (Feb 2007 to date) is wrong?

I am bad! :twisted:
#32936 - Cst - RCMP - 1975-10-27 / 2010-12-29
"F" Div - 1976-05-04 / end (GD & HP / RTS)
Proud Dad of #54266 - RCMP - 2007-02-12 / date
RCMP Vets Assoc - Regina Div member
Husband, Dad, Father-In-Law, & Grampa(x6)

User avatar
SierraSeven
King Poobah
Posts: 1692
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:48 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby SierraSeven » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:53 pm

Borderwatchman wrote:I'll do you one better. I remember a uniformed...ahem..."officer" telling me Canada rents the land from the natives. I could've thrown all my political science and law text books at him and he'd still be stuck in his ignorant ways. I didn't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for him.

Well, technically the government does pay them rent to have the facility there, however we shouldn't be. The Crown technically owns the land, the natives are just in possession of it (if I read that long blurb correctly from the other thread).
While you are reading this, your enemy is training.

Borderwatchman
Grand Poobah
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: CBSA and sidearms

Postby Borderwatchman » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Sorry, I should've clarified. This bozo was trying to tell me that Canada pays rent for the entire country!!!!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest