The investigation into the mass shooting that has devastated the small town of Tumbler Ridge, B.C. will have to answer an uncomfortable question, according to lawyers who spoke with CTV News. The RCMP had already seized firearms from the home where Jesse Van Rootselaar lived before the shooting, so why did police return guns to a residence where the teenage suspect was previously apprehended under the Mental Health Act? The shooting began at the 18-year-old suspect’s family home, then continued on to Tumbler Ridge Secondary School where Van Rootselaar shot at students in the stairwell and library, according to police. The suspect also shot at responding officers before turning a gun on herself. Eight people were killed, including Van Rootselaar’s mother, Jennifer Jacobs, and her younger brother, Emmett. In an update on Friday, the Mounties now say that they are focused on three suspected murder weapons, one more than they had mentioned in their first briefing. In a news release, investigators say they are prioritizing the analysis of a long gun and a modified rifle that was recovered at the school, as well as a shotgun located at Van Rootselaar’s home. At this time, police are unsure of how and where the shooter obtained two of those guns. According to police, the shotgun Van Rootselaar used in the killing of her mother and 11-year-old brother was found among other firearms at the house and has never previously been seized. B.C. RCMP say they also don’t know the origin of the main firearm used at the school and that it was not previously seized. “Efforts continue to identify the owner and source of all other firearms,” the statement read. Deputy RCMP Commissioner Dwayne McDonald has said that over the past few years, police have attended the suspect’s home multiple times and have previously apprehended Van Rootselaar under the Mental Health Act. Police can arrest someone who they deem a threat to themselves and others. When that happens, they’re hospitalized and can be released after 72 hours following assessment. About two years ago, the deputy commissioner said firearms were seized from the home. “At a later point in time, the lawful owner of those firearms petitioned for those firearms to be returned - and they were.” But McDonald did not stipulate when those guns were given back and by whom. Under Canadian law, when police seize guns, they have to document each firearm and surrounding circumstances then justify it in court. In mental health cases, police do not need to get a warrant if they are concerned about public safety. A legal firearm owner can make an application to return their seized weapons. But according to Edward Burlew, an Ontario attorney who has practiced firearm law for more than three decades, it is not easy for owners to get their guns back, especially if the mental health act is involved. Burlew says depending on what point in the process an application was made, a justice of the peace, crown attorney or police officer can make the decision to release the guns and stipulate the conditions. In cases where a person other than the legal owner was taken into custody under the act, Burlew says he has been able successfully argue for the return of the firearms but under strict conditions. In those rare decisions, the owner had to store their guns in a secure combination safe (not a key safe) or agree to store their guns at a location outside the home, where it can’t be easily accessed by other residents. Police have said that Van Rootselaar had a firearms license, but that it had expired. Since there is a history of mental health calls pertaining to Van Rootselaar, Burlew says police can take the additional step of asking the chief firearms officer in the province to prohibit the teenager from handling or possessing firearms. “The question is, why was the prohibition application, which was begun by the seizure not followed through on because even if they are under, even if they are juvenile, sanctions can be applied even if they are juvenile.” CTV News asked if officers placed such a weapons ban on Van Rootselaar. In a statement the RCMP responded that the details are part of the “ongoing investigation, but may also be subject to relevant legislation or processes that preclude the release of information currently.” The BC RCMP said it’s committed to answering as many questions as possible but must also “adhere to the law and some information may never be available, while other information will take time.” That lack of transparency is problematic, say legal experts. These cases usually involve some type of court proceedings and should be part of the public record, according to Ottawa defense lawyer, Michael Spratt “This information should be readily available to the public and it should be information we can look at,” Spratt said in an interview with CTV News. “Only with that information can we see if mistakes are made.”
