The deadly mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., has sparked questions about Canada’s firearm seizure regulations and so-called “red flag” laws that allow the removal of guns in a case of mental health concerns.
The RCMP have begun to provide more details about the firearms used in the attack, but little is known about how the shooter, identified by RCMP as 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar, acquired them.
Officials said Wednesday that firearms were seized from the family home “a couple of years ago,” but were returned “at a later point in time” after a successful court petition to get them back.
On Friday, B.C. RCMP commanding officer Dep. Comm. Dwayne McDonald said the two firearms believed to have been used — one at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School, the other at Van Rootselaar’s family home — had never been seized by police before Tuesday’s shooting.
A long gun and a modified rifle were recovered at the school where six people were killed, he said, and a shotgun and “a number of other firearms” were found at the residence where Van Rootselaar’s mother and stepbrother were found fatally shot.
“The shotgun is believed to be involved in the homicides at the home, and has never been previously seized by police,” McDonald told reporters.
“Our investigation has also been able to determine that the main firearm believed to be used in the mass shooting at the school, has also never been seized by the RCMP, and its origin is currently unknown.
“We’re trying to determine how our suspect got that firearm.”
McDonald noted the shotgun used at the home was not registered. Asked if it was legally obtained, he said “we don’t know that.”
He would not identify the specific firearm used in the school shooting.
He added that Van Rootselaar’s mother had a valid firearms licence but did not have any weapons registered to that licence.
“As you all know, there are certain types of firearms, unrestricted, (that) do not have to be registered, so we’re trying to determine and trace the origin of all firearms,” he said.
On Wednesday, McDonald said the shooter had a firearms licence that expired “I believe” in 2024 and did not have any firearms registered to her. He also said the shooter had a history of mental health issues and was known to police.
Get daily National news
“Police had attended that residence on multiple occasions over the past several years, dealing with concerns of mental health with respect to our suspect,” he said.
“I can say that on different occasions the suspect was apprehended for assessment and follow-up” under B.C.’s Mental Health Act, he added, and had been taken to hospital “in some circumstances.”
B.C. Premier David Eby told reporters Wednesday evening he had “a lot of questions” when asked about the seizure and return of firearms from the home.
“I know the people of Tumbler Ridge have a lot of questions. I’m sure the families have a lot of questions,” he said.
What are Canada's 'red flag' laws?
Section 117.04 of the Criminal Code allows for the seizure of firearms by a peace officer, even without a warrant, if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe a person poses a safety risk to themselves or others by possessing those firearms.
If any firearms, weapons or firearms licences are seized, a judge will have to review the evidence behind the seizure at a hearing within 30 days. The judge will then determine whether the items should be forfeited or destroyed, or issue a prohibition order that forbids the person in question from possession for up to five years.
The previous Liberal government in 2023 passed Bill C-21, which updated Canada’s “red flag” laws to allow anyone — including civilians, such as a family member — to apply to a court for an emergency prohibition order if there is a safety concern. The applicant must prove with evidence that a person poses a risk to themself or anyone else.
That order, if issued by a judge, directs the removal of the person’s firearms, firearm licence and any other weapons for up to 30 days. A hearing may also be set to determine if a longer-term prohibition of up to five years should be issued.
An application can also be made for an emergency limitations on access order, which would direct a person living with someone under a prohibition order to store their firearms in another location for up to 30 days. A longer-term order may also be considered in these cases.
Firearms may also be seized if police determine firearms are being improperly stored, or if an unlicensed member of a household has access to a gun safe in the home, among “so many other factors,” lawyers and firearms instructors told Global News.
“If there’s a continued safety concern, the police can intervene once again,” said Rob Dhanu, a defence lawyer and former federal Crown prosecutor based in Abbotsford, B.C.
“It’s all about balancing … public safety concerns with the individual rights of Canadian citizens.”
Prohibition orders can be appealed under the Criminal Code, which requires a hearing where the person must prove there is no longer a danger posed by themself or someone else in the home.
In a mental health scenario, the firearms may be returned if “you can prove that … the individual is now medicated properly and there haven’t been any incidents or events for the last couple of years,” said Dan Jones, who chairs the justice studies program at NorQuest College in Edmonton and is a retired 25-year veteran of the Edmonton Police Service.
“The other one would be potentially if the person who owned the firearms and the person who had the issues around mental health … no longer lived at that address. That’s another way to get them back…. So it’s dependent upon the situation. Every situation is going to have a little bit of a difference, but also they’re going to have some similarities when it comes to ensuring the safety of the individual, to people in the home, and people in public.”
However, lawyers say judges are very cautious when it comes to mental health cases because it can be difficult to predict how people will behave in the future.
“In my experience, it’s very rare for somebody to get the firearms back, regardless of where they were seized,” said Jerry Steele, a Vancouver-based defence lawyer who has experience arguing weapons cases.
“Particularly in youth cases, it’s very, very rare to see those firearms return.”
B.C. MLA Elenore Sturko, an independent who previously served as an RCMP officer, told reporters Thursday she has questions about why the firearms were returned to the home of the Tumbler Ridge shooter.
“It is someone’s legal right to make an application to have those firearms returned,” she said. “So for what reason they were returned, what arguments were made, who those firearms belong to and whether or not they were the firearms used in the commission of this horrible attack, those are questions that need to be answered.”
Sturko added that the confirmation of multiple mental health interventions by police may require B.C. Attorney General Nikki Sharma to seek changes to the Criminal Code, particularly Section 117.04.
“If this is a law that needs changing and we need to toughen up the ability for someone who potentially poses a risk to have firearms returned to their home, she needs to go to Ottawa and have this law toughened up,” she said.
Jones, however, said it’s difficult to see where the law could be strengthened further.
“There is always potential, right? Because firearms are firearms. And that is why we have strict firearms laws.”
— with files from Global’s Jillian Piper and Rumina Daya
Comments
Comments closed.
Due to the sensitive and/or legal subject matter of some of the content on globalnews.ca, we reserve the ability to disable comments from time to time.
Please see our Commenting Policy for more.