Drumheller-Stettler By-Election - Police Report on John Rew Arrest
June 6, 2007 · By Greg Farries
To follow up on Jaunque’s posting, “Harper & Stelmach: Register this!” a friend of mine has forwarded me the actual RCMP news release relating to the incident.
I’ve contacted John Rew for his version of the event (in addition to what he has written on his site) and I will keep everyone updated…
DRUMHELLER, ALBERTA - 2007 04 16
RCMP DRUMHELLER: FIREARMS SEIZED
On Monday, April 16th,2007, at 04:45hrs Drumheller RCMP with the assistance of the RCMP Emergency Response Team from Calgary, Alberta executed a Warrant to Search at a rural property south of the Hamlet of Craigmyle, Alberta, after conducting an investigation involving firearms offences. The Emergency Response Team made entry into a garage on the property taking one male into custody without incident. Police located 28 firearms with ammunition on the property including an UZI, two assault rifles, five handguns and 20 long guns.
Police have charge William (John) REW (age:50 years) a resident of Starland County, Alberta, with Possession of Firearms without holding a licence Section 91(1) of the Criminal Code, Possession of Prohibited Devices (8 high Capacity magazines) Sec. 91(2) of the C.C., two counts of Possession of Prohibited Weapons Section 91(2) C.C. , Unsafe Storage of Firearms, Section 86(2) C.C. , Possession of Ammunition with Restricted and Prohibited firearms Section 95(1) C.C.
Mr. Rew was later released on a Promise to Appear and compelled to attend Provincial Court in Drumheller, Alberta on Friday, May 25th, 2007 at 10:00 AM.
- 30 -
Media Contact:
Cpl. Mark Harrison
Drumheller Detachment
(403) 823 7590 Office
(403) 820 0548 Cell
mark.harrison@rcmp-grc.ga.ca
Thanks, Greg. I appreciate the honest research. Funny, Mr. Rew’s account didn’t mention the Uzi or assault rifles.
C’mon, why are you picking on this poor farmer and duck-hunter. You’re a commie.
“Funny, Mr. Rew’s account didn’t mention the Uzi or assault rifles.”
You mean the ones the Emergency Response Team were carrying? Those fifty-year-old farmers can put up a hell of a fight.
So what, owned an Uzi. He also was a law abiding citizen with no background of criminal or otherwise devious behaviour.
The response of an Emergency Response Team was hardly warranted.
I have no problem with large collections, restricted weapons etc. BUT if the unsafe storage is for real, I say run him. There is absolutely zero excuse for unsafe storage.
I’d be curious to find out if Mr Rew had applied for a renewal of his license before his previous one expired, in which case this raid would be totally outrageous, as the police would have been using a technicality to go after someone that had been trying to comply with the law.
As to the Uzi and assault rifles, those who owned guns like the Uzi when they were made Prohibited weapons were grandfathered, allowing them to retain them or to sell and trade them with others that had been similarly grandfathered at the time. The “assault” rifles could be either Prohibited, Restricted or Unrestricted (just like the other longarms) in their classification, and is not a legal definition that accurately applies to even many of the guns that are thus described. Depending upon thier specific status and the current amnesty to the registry, Mr Rew might not even have had to have them registered.
If Mr Rew did actually have high capacity magazines, that would put him in real trouble, as there were few if any exceptions to having to modify them to five round capacity when the law banned high capacity mags. However, the police could be trying to get him on the grounds that the conversions weren’t permanent in thier eyes, or perhaps he had dissassembled unmodified hi-cap magazines the precise status of which is unclear.
As to having ammunition stored with restricted firearms, again the law is rather vague when it comes to what that constitutes. Is having ammunition stored in an adjoining room or closet legal or not? It’s hard to get a clear answer at times, and for all we know the police could have found one unfired round on the ground in the room where the pistols/uzi were locked up in another cabinet or case.
I’m not saying that Mr Rew is either innocent or guilty of wrongdoing, but simply want to point out that many of the current laws in place are vague enough and subject to interpretation that gives to police lots of leeway when the want to single someone out. This is one area of the law where semantics can mean alot more than the supposed spirit of the law to promote individual and public safety. If everytime that a bureaucratic issue like a lapsed renewal, misplacement of a person’s application or other bureaucratic anomoly is used to justify the police raiding a gun owner who’s had no previous record, that suggests that even law abiding gun owners can be treated as guilty until proven inoccent. There’s still lots of reason to be vigilant about this incident.
I realize we all like to drag an argument to territory that we’re comfortable about, which sometimes requires that we pretend to misunderstand another person’s position. So I’ll just summarize and restate my point here. Folks who want to argue about firearm registration can do so: I don’t favour it, personally, but that’s what I’ve been talking about.
The original post that launched this series featured a tear jerking and highly flavoured account that cast Mr. Rew as a bemused victim of nasty, brutish police. My point was, and remains, that a story that comes from a single source is not reliable, with the corollary that there was probably more to the story than meets the eye.
I should point out that the author of the “column” had access to the same information that Greg has so diligently winkled out. Nevertheless, neither he nor Mr. Rew saw fit to mention that the haul included “an UZI, two assault rifles, five handguns and 20 long guns”, or to list the charges.
My ideologue friends may claim that doesn’t change the flavour of the story at all. You are mistaken.
Summary: I didn’t comment on Mr. Rew’s right to own the guns in question (of course he can), or the absurdity of our gun laws. I am commenting on the silliness of taking one person’s unsubstantiated account of a police action as gospel.
If owning an uzi is against the law, then how can this person be law abiding?
Owning an Uzi is not against the law as long as the owner was in posession of it when it was declared a prohibited weapon. Alternately, he could have owned another gun that was banned at the same time, which would qualify him to buy and trade for other guns prohibited by that same legislation or Order in Council.
Nowhere does it suggest in the RCMP press release that he illegally acquired the Uzi or other guns, which were all known to the police.
The point is, this man has no history of criminal behaviour. It’s not like they were seizing weapons from another James Roszko at Mayerthorpe.
As Link Byfield notes, there was a time when the RCMP were undaunted by any lack of material fire power on their part, relying more on intelligent use of authority after sizing up the type of people with whom they would be dealing.
If the possession of such a stock of weaponry was the ONLY reason for using such overwhelming force in seizing them, then that is totally unacceptable! There should have been some reason to believe that Mr. Rew would put up a fight.
From what I gather, Mr. Rew posed no such threat. If the RCMP were going to seize his weapons, they should have had the courage to send two officers in the middle of the day to do it. Not only would it have enhanced their authority and reputation, but Mr. Rew would have little grounds now for complaining, considering his tardiness with licencing.
The RCMP has a lot of explaining to do for their tactics.
Another amusing interpolation on spin and style here.
Greg refers to “what John has written on his site”, and that’s certainly my impression too. However, the page is written to sound like a sympathetic and indignant third party, identified only as “A Firearms Owner”, who refers throughout to John in the third person, and who pleads “Will this help John and his family? We must consider ourselves John’s firearms family members. I stand up for my family, do you?”
Heh. Cute.
“this man has no history of criminal behaviour”
No criminal has a history until he is caught for the first time.
What’s your point Feelman?
I will try to make this simple… When someone doesn’t have a criminal record, it doesn’t mean that they are not a criminal, it just means they have never been caught. I thought that was pretty clear.
How about this. Time is linear…. no no, that may be too hard. Hmmmm.
I am at a loss to make it any simpler, Freeman. Maybe ask some of your budies to explain it.
Your point is not clear because your implication is not clear at all. Here’s some logic 101:
When someone doesn’t have a criminal record, it doesn’t mean that they either are a criminal or are not a criminal. If they are a criminal, then they haven’t been caught. It remains the case, however, that they still might not be a criminal or any criminal intent!
Surely when the guy is 50 some years old, of good repute in his community, you give him the benefit of the doubt; seemingly the case with Mr. Rew.
The RCMP had every reason to get militant with Roszco, but it took a few killings before they actually interviewed the neighbours. There was lots of dirt on Roszco, his hatred of police known.
Unless there was something suspicious in Mr. Rew’s background, or in the testimony of character witnesses, the police action taken against him was unjustified.
“I will try to make this simple… When someone doesn’t have a criminal record, it doesn’t mean that they are not a criminal, it just means they have never been caught.”
Are you confessing to something here?
Good question.
Freeman makes a great point in bringing up Mayerthorpe. We all have to put up with living in a post-Roszko world, at least in provinces where the RCMP conduct provincial policing. Was there any indication that apprehending Rew would require the Emergency Response Team complete with bullet-proof vests and the like? He didn’t have a criminal record (unlike Roszko, who had a long one) and he had a record of service in his community. Yet the fact that he declined to re-register a few of his guns turned him into an apparently homicidal maniac who required being taken out like a military target.
If something happened (god forbid) then we would be asking why the police were not better prepared. Now that the police went in prepared for the worst, they are being accused of going overboard.
We are all sitting around speculating without any facts.
Sure we do. The RCMP sent in what is for all intents and purposes a military unit to apprehend a harmless old gun collector who committed the horrific crime of not conforming to the state’s registration laws. Try reading the RCMP’s press release.
Argument by adjective is fun, isn’t it? Not very helpful, though.
Ever see the television show Due South?
That’s the image the RCMP used to project, and certainly would like to still; there being some genuine truth to it.
The RCMP and NWMP have a pretty heroic history. Consider the story of the two NWMP officers relieving a division of the US cavalry of hundreds of hostile Sioux Indians, loading them on a train, then making the necessary arrests upon arrival in Lethbridge, for crimes committed during the Northwest Rebellion. The Americans were shocked by just how courageous they were, and how it actually worked!
It is an image of innate authority that requires courage and civility—force only when necessary—to maintain, neither of which were apparently shown to Mr. Rew.
I don’t recall ever seeing an uzi in Due South.
Maybe you should watch more episodes.
“Argument by adjective is fun, isn’t it?”
It’s alright but not nearly as side splitting as argument by derision…hey, dang it! was that a UFO??
“It is an image of innate authority that requires courage and civility—force only when necessary—to maintain, neither of which were apparently shown to Mr. Rew.”
Key word…”apparently”, which is why a narrative other than that of the self-proclaimed “victim” WOUld be useful.
WOULD be used by whom?
At the very least, the RCMP should be explaining why they felt such forceful confrontation was necessarily; that is, beyond, “he owed an uzi.” The RCMP is a public institution and the burden of explanation is on them.
“WOULD be used by whom?”
I assume you mean “useful”? It would be useful to folks like me who are trying to assess the validity of Mr. Rew’s account.
“At the very least, the RCMP should be explaining why they felt such forceful confrontation was necessarily; that is, beyond, “he owed an uzi.†The RCMP is a public institution and the burden of explanation is on them.”
You think so? Well, I personally don’t want the RCMP to waste their time and my money in responding to unfounded grievances or complaints.
There are few issues getting tangled up here, but one is the question of the actual procedure followed by the RCMP. I honestly don’t know what interaction had occurred between the RCMP and Mr. Rew up to this point: I don’t know how they determined what their approach should be, nor whether their procedure and organization was standard in this case. If you want to make Rew the hero, you can use loaded vocabulary like “innocent old gun collector”, which may or may not be accurate: if I wanted to justify the RCMP, I can use loaded vocabulary like “heavily armed felony suspect”, which would be equally correct. What I’m saying is, I don’t know what preceded this raid, and I suspect you don’t either. Given that, it seems to me that neither of us can really comment with any authority on whether their complement or procedures were reasonable in this case.
“Well, I personally don’t want the RCMP to waste their time and my money in responding to unfounded grievances or complaints.”
Yeah, just like Air India. What a waste of money it would have been to follow up on those unfounded complaints.
I guess that is why George isn’t in charge of the RCMP.
Thank Jesus (for once).
No much of a parallel there, I’m afraid.
True, but George loves those LONG stretches in logic and comparisons. I am shocked that this isn’t about gays, somehow.
Is someone else pretending to be Smarter than Ezra?(# 29)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. There are a lot of people who are smarter than Ezra. But is someone else pretending to be “Smarter Than Ezra”?
The RCMP has public relations personnel for a reason. When they commence a police raid of such a nature, of the kind taken against Mr. Rew, there should be some explanation from them for why seizing his armament was taken so seriously, why it was thought necessary to take it to the level of paramilitary confrontation.
Right now, because the RCMP has offered no good justification for the action they took against Mr. Rew, he IS looking like an innocent old gun collector; pretty harmless at that, except maybe at the polls.
Balbulican writes:
“What I’m saying is, I don’t know what preceded this raid, and I suspect you don’t either. Given that, it seems to me that neither of us can really comment with any authority on whether their complement or procedures were reasonable in this case.”
I don’t know what proceeded this raid but clearly it was pretty serious business. Seeing as Canada is not, or should not be allowed to become, a police state, it is incumbent upon the police services, here the RCMP, to inform the public of why they act when they do and why they choose the tactics they choose, when at all possible.
From what I can gather, the RCMP has offered no such reasonable justification for their action against Mr. Rew or why they considered him so dangerous. Simply owning an uzi does not make one threatening, but rather there should be some reasonable suspicion that one might use it in a confrontation.
Any such suspicion is looking pretty weak considering Mr. Rew stores his guns in his 80 year old mother’s basement and willing lead police to them after they busted into his house; even more amazingly, probably without speaking to his lawyer first.
I suspected STE would bring in gays somewhere.
I highly doubt anyone is pretending to be “Smarter Than Ezra” in this thread; comments 29 and 30 more or less demonstrating “Smarter Than Ezra’s” two-spiritedness, as the Indians say.
Tell me STE, does owning an uzi make Mr. Rew a homophobe too?
“The RCMP has public relations personnel for a reason. When they commence a police raid of such a nature, of the kind taken against Mr. Rew, there should be some explanation from them for why seizing his armament was taken so seriously, why it was thought necessary to take it to the level of paramilitary confrontation.”
We’re simply repeating the same things at each other. You think a response is necessary: the RCMP and I don’t. As I said, I have no idea what SOP for seizure of arms is: I also don’t know the basis of the assumptions that you preface with words like “probably” or “apparently”. You’re also free to portray Mr. Rew’s character any way that supports your argument. Tell you what: you keep calling him an innocent hobbyist, and I’ll keep calling him a heavily armed suspected felon, and we’ll see if that changes reality at all.
Unfortunately Balbulican, you rationalize to the point of missing the obvious and call it scepticism. But in reality, your arguments are too haughty to be that of a sceptic; pride is blinding.
I said he looks like an innocent hobbyist because the police have yet to sufficiently justify their actions against him. Why was he thought so threatening?
It’s a good question. The RCMP should have answered it by now. And no, simply owning an extensive gun collection does not make one threatening.
“But in reality, your arguments are too haughty to be that of a sceptic; pride is blinding”
You just can’t get through an argument without pulling that card, can you?
Fuck it.
Sure, whatever princess.
Heh. It’s okay, George. I know when you pull that one out, you’ve reached the end your rope.
It’s a shame, though. Some of your associates here seem to want to run a site for grownups. I just keep forgetting you’re not one of them.
Big sloppy kiss, little guy.
Thanks. XOXOXO
And here I thought you were all about Never Never Land; deny deny deny, no more explanation necessary.
In the real world, grownups are rarely so priggish; except those with something stuck up their arse.
When you feel like rebutting—or maybe agreeing—with the latter part of comment 38, by all means, have at it.
“Tell me STE, does owning an uzi make Mr. Rew a homophobe too?”
Nope, just a criminal, or at least someone worthy of attention by the RCMP.
“In the real world, grownups are rarely so priggish; except those with something stuck up their arse.”
George, you really do need to talk to someone about your obsession with homosexuality.
You said nothing in 38 I didn’t address in 28 and 37.
Since George has elected to moved Greg’s thread into tot country, I’ll ask Greg (who does seem capable of adult discussion) whether he has had any response from Mr. Rew.
Thanks for the advice. I’m not so much obsessed with homosexuality as I am annoyed with the pathological justifications people give for it, for human sexuality in general.
But, THEN, that’s entirely beside the point, so as for comments 28 and 37, you have yet to say why it is excusable for the RCMP to not justify the specific action they took against Mr. Rew.
Why was Mr. Rew seen to be so threatening? because he was a gun collector? Or was there some other reason for orchestrating such a paramilitary raid, thinking he would put up a fight?
The RCMP should be explaining this to the public. Instead, they say little and Mr. Rew is running for office.
My suspicion is that the RCMP has no good justification that rural Albertans will find reasonable, so to say anything would inadvertently provide a boost to Mr. Rew’s campaign.
If this is not the case, then the RCMP should be saying more than they have said. Right now their actions are looking injustified.
BTW, it cannot be reasonably inferred that priggish people who act like something is stuck up their arse are necessarily homosexual.
Such inference derives from false stereotypes, and, so, is rather homophobic, don’t you think?
Nope, nothing from John Rew - which I find disappointing. I’ll email him again. You would think he’s want to tell his side of the story? Particularly because his current story is lacking in details…
Also, I’m interested in hearing what the RCMP has to say. Perhaps I will give the RCMP media contact, Cpl. Mark Harrison, a call and see if he can shed light on some of the specific circumstances of this case.
I’d like to see the arrest warrant - not sure if that is publicly available.
Also, lets keep this thread on topic…
If possible, that is, should you speak with Cpl. Harrison, you should ask him why confiscating Mr. Rew’s firearms required such a raid, not just two officers asking for them? Had character witnesses lead them to believe he was threatening?
I am sure that Cpl. Harrison is not accountable to any John, Dick, or Harry who thinks he can just phone and ask questions, George and Greg. Next, thepolitic is hardly “media”. Any good communications person will stick to what is in the press release, so don’t waste your time. If Cpl. Harrison doesn’t, then (s)he will be held accountable elsewhere. I am not giving you information that is not in the press release is worth her/his job.
Nice try, though, and good on you for thinking thepolitic is so big (outside the 17-18 people who actually read/comment here).
Oops, I meant, I am not sure that giving you information…. dang typos.
Ha, you’re right - those bloody civil servants have no business talking to us insignificant bloggers.
Spoken like a true bureaucrat, he Ezra?
Thanks, Greg. I appreciate your focus here.
One interesting question to ask Mr. Rew AND the RCMP would be whether or not Mr. Rew has lodged a formal complaint or requested an investigation. I see no indication that he has, which strikes me as a bit odd.
Agreed. I think this whole situation is rather odd and we’re all stumbling around in the dark without some clarifications from both sides.
I’ll include that question in both my correspondences - if you have any more, feel free to post them here, or contact me directly.
“Ha, you’re right - those bloody civil servants have no business talking to us insignificant bloggers.”
As someone who understands the political process as much as someone with your educational background, I am surprised that you would even think otherwise, Greg.
There is something to be said about accountability (and there are mechanisms in place for this to happen - access to information, speaking to your local minister, legitimate questions from legitimate media sources), but there is also another to be said about doing your job correctly. You would fire someone who worked under you who leaked information they were not allowed to give to the public. So why expect that this “bloody civil servant” to care more about your questions than his/her job when he/she does not answer to you, and when you are not willing to go through the correct and legitimate channels to get the information? I imagine this person knows a whole hell of a lot more on the topic than you do, and that there are bigger reasons (i.e. fair trial, due process, innocent until proven guilty and all of that jazz) for not telling a blogger something outside of the scope of the press release, so if you don’t like the process, don’t get pissed off at the”bloody public servant” but take it to someone who can actually do something about it (i.e. politician) Furthermore, given that you are not a member of the media, and even if you were, he/she would stick to the media lines he/she is being paid to communicate. Accountability is also about doing the job you are paid to do; expecting otherwise is unethical.
“Spoken like a true bureaucrat, he Ezra?”
Indeed.
I’m not really sure why you’re getting worked up, or trying to put words in my mouth.
Go back up and read the police report again, it contains a media contact person at the bottom. Also, information about a specific case that is considered publicly available, does not end with a police report, or even a press release. If it did, there we would not reason for press conferences, or investigative journalism.
Sorry Ezra, but I never said anything about leaking information - so lets not put words in my mouth. It is entirely within my rights to ask for clarifications about a specific case. I’m not pretending to be some big time journalist, and I’m not asking anyone to reveal confidential information , I am curious about the specifics of this case (as I know a lot of people are) and I am going to ask anyone who is involved in the case to comment. The RCMP and John Rew will either comment or they won’t - but I know for a fact that there is more information about this case that would be considered publicly accessable.
Hmm, I guess that is the reason why bloggers are doing the most interesting things relating to investigative journalism, and why the main stream media is hurting so badly in terms of credibility and viewership.
That wasn’t meant as a compliment.
“That wasn’t meant as a compliment.”
No shit.
With regards to Mr. John Rew
Property rights fall under provincial legislation in the British North America Act and the Charter of rights and freedoms. No legislation has been passed in the legislature of Alberta giving the federal government the right to seize long guns or issue acquisition certificates or PAL or any other rubbish. Show me where the province passed legislation to the feds to limit the number of shells in a magazine. The supreme courtassumes much power and pretends they have rights over the province which they do not. In the l930s the federal government was given rights by the provinces over pistols and machine guns. If Mr. Rew had registered his guns that is all the province requires period. If his F.A.C. had expired that’s
just tough because no where in provincial law does it say the Federal Government has any more say with Mr. Rews firearms. The supreme court nor the Queens court of Alberta may pass provincial and federal rights back and forth. The Feds like to bluff but that is wher our week kneed lackeys in the Alberta Government are suposto protest.
If you read the Governor Generals Act you will see that she is a de facto governor general and if you read Blacks 6th law dictionary you will see that de facto means one who is in actual possession of supreme power but by usurption or without lawful title. Websters dictionary says “exercising power as if legally constituted”. Since l93l we have had an illegal government in Canada.
If you read section l5 of the Criminal Code of Canada you will see “obediance to defacto law, No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect to an act or omission in obediance to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in defacto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs”. So Rew is innocent. Section l9 of the criminal code says “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. In other words if you don’t know what they are doing is illegal well that’s just tough luck. It goes back to l93l when the last British Governor General was recalled and they in effect gave us our independence and right to confederate. Unfortunately we have only had one vote to confederate and that was on the Charlettown accord which we refused. We never had a vote on the Charter of rights and freedoms but Pierre said “well that’s your constitution”. Unfortunately for Pierre of the ten Premiers who were suposto sign Rene Levesque refused and he represented l/3 of the people. In an all party agreement if all do not sign it is not legal as any lawyer can tell you. If you want to obey the silly Federal Government and supreme court well ignorance is no excuse. You can bet the Mounties are wishing to heck they had left this prairie chicken alone in his nest. Dennis Combs
[...] than expected was the heavy-handedness of the police seizure of his gun collection reported at http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....hn-…. If local opposition to the registry can be rallied to Rew’s side, he might do quite [...]
Greg, has there been any response from Mr. Rew?
[...] MSM is Maclean’s 50 prominent commentators on the news. This story goes back two months, but, considering the conversation on The Politic last week over Mr. Rew and the RCMP, it seems especially relevant now. Of particular note is Barry Cooper’s comment suggesting a [...]