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 has provided few details so far about the firearms used in the shooting and 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 later returned after a successful court petition to get them back.
It is not yet clear if those firearms included the ones used in Tuesday’s shooting, which RCMP confirmed were a long gun and a modified handgun.
“Police have attended that residence in the past, approximately a couple years ago, where firearms were seized under the Criminal Code,” Dep. Comm. Dwayne McDonald, the B.C. RCMP commanding officer, said in a media briefing.
“I can say that at a later point in time, the lawful owner of those firearms petitioned for those firearms to be returned, and they were.”
McDonald added that the shooter had a firearms licence that expired “I believe” in 2024 and did not have any firearms currently registered. He also said the shooter had a history of mental health issues and was known to police.
“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.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
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.
“You can never 100 per cent say something is not going to go wrong, and I think that’s [true] in any situation where there are firearms in a home,” he said.
“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
