A recent segment on Global News examined disturbing new details emerging from the Tumblr Ridge mass shooting investigation.
Social media posts from a now removed Reddit account allegedly linked to suspect Jesse van Rootselaar appeared to reference firearms ownership, including posts stating:
“I’m a 15 year old trans person transitioning from male to female. I own 7 firearms. It’s cool.”
Police later confirmed that:
-
The suspect’s firearms licence had expired in 2024
-
No firearms were registered in her name
-
Firearms had previously been seized from the residence under the Criminal Code
-
The lawful owner later successfully petitioned for their return
The RCMP also stated there were no criminal charges related to the earlier seizure.
In the segment, Rob Dhanu KC, co founding partner of Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group, provided legal analysis grounded in 15 years of experience handling weapons related cases.
Why Are Seized Firearms Sometimes Returned?
Mr. Dhanu explained that it is very rare for firearms to be returned after seizure. However, the Criminal Code allows lawful owners to petition for return where:
-
They are properly licensed
-
They are not prohibited from possessing firearms
-
The court is satisfied that legal requirements have been met
If a judge determines there is no ongoing legal basis to withhold the firearms, they can be returned.
This does not mean police “approved” of a risk. It means that under Canadian law, the legal threshold for continued seizure was not met.
The Storage Problem: Compliance Is Hard to Police
One of the most important points raised in the interview:
“Somebody’s got a firearm in their house and they’re not storing it properly — and then barring some kind of complaint — it’s likely that nobody would really know.”
Canadian gun laws are strict. But enforcement often depends on:
-
Complaints
-
Investigations
-
Police attendance for unrelated matters
Absent those triggers, non compliance inside a private residence is difficult to detect.
Mental Health, Risk, and the Limits of Prediction
The RCMP confirmed the suspect had been apprehended multiple times over several years due to mental health concerns. However, local health authorities confirmed there was no inpatient care at the time of the incident.
Mr. Dhanu noted the reality courts face:
“It’s hard to predict how somebody who’s undiagnosed will behave — so judges and police are very cautious.”
Canadian law requires evidence based decisions. Judges cannot restrict liberties based on speculation. That tension between public safety and individual rights is one of the most complex areas in criminal law.
Political Questions and Public Concern
When asked whether it was concerning that firearms had previously been seized and later returned, the Premier responded that there were “a lot of questions” — reflecting the broader public uncertainty.
But as Mr. Dhanu’s commentary makes clear, legal outcomes are governed by statutory thresholds, not public emotion.
The Bigger Issue
This case highlights difficult realities:
-
Firearm compliance is largely reactive
-
Seizure does not automatically mean permanent prohibition
-
Mental health concerns alone do not eliminate legal rights
-
Courts must apply legal standards, not hindsight
Public safety debates often happen after tragedy. The legal system operates before it.
Understanding that distinction matters.
If you are facing weapons related charges or have questions about firearms law in British Columbia, contact Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group at 604.746.3330 to schedule a consultation.
Legal clarity matters — especially when the stakes are high.
