Firearms Seized Then RETURNED In Shocking Oversight

Person assembling a rifle with gloved hands.

A Canadian school massacre is now colliding with a familiar political pattern: a grieving community wants answers while activists and media gatekeepers argue over what the public is “allowed” to discuss.

Story Snapshot

Justin VanRootselaar, the biological father of 18-year-old shooter Jesse Van Rootselaar, issued a public statement on Feb. 13, 2026, emphasizing grief and estrangement.
The Feb. 11, 2026, attack in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., left eight dead, including the shooter’s mother, an 11-year-old child, five students, and an education assistant.
BC RCMP confirmed multiple prior police visits to the home tied to mental-health and self-harm concerns, and firearms had previously been seized and later returned to a lawful owner.
Investigators say four firearms were connected to the killings, and the origin of the main gun believed to have caused the most damage remains unknown.

Father’s Statement Centers on Grief and Distance

Justin VanRootselaar’s statement, released Feb. 13, came after BC RCMP identified his biological child as the deceased suspect in the Feb. 11 Tumbler Ridge killings. VanRootselaar expressed condolences to victims’ families and described himself as not being part of Jesse’s life, saying the child’s mother had declined his involvement from the beginning. He also asked for privacy and said his family would not be making further statements.

Reporting also highlighted a dispute over names and pronouns. Some outlets described the suspect as a transgender woman who had begun transitioning, while also noting that the biological father used male pronouns and a different name when referring to his child. That mismatch matters less than the underlying fact the public still lacks key answers about how a known-at-risk situation escalated into a mass-casualty event in a small town where residents know each other personally.

What Police Confirmed About Warning Signs and Firearms

BC RCMP said officers made multiple visits to the residence before the attack due to concerns about mental health and self-harm. Police also confirmed that about two years before the shooting, firearms were seized from the home under Canada’s Criminal Code and later returned to a lawful owner after a petition process. Those facts, while limited, underline a hard reality: authorities were aware of risk indicators, yet the situation still ended in eight deaths and a devastated community.

Investigators have tied four firearms to the killings, with two located at the school and two at the residence. Police have also said the primary firearm believed to have caused the most significant damage had never been seized previously, and its origins remain unknown. A shotgun used in the incident was described as unregistered and never previously seized. Until investigators explain procurement, storage, and access, the public debate will remain vulnerable to speculation.

A Tight-Knit Community Searches for Accountability Without Scapegoating

Tumbler Ridge’s size and social fabric make the loss especially personal, with coverage describing a community where people recognize each other at the grocery store and local events. The victims included the suspect’s mother, her 11-year-old son, five students at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School, and an education assistant. That mix of victims—family at home and children at school—keeps attention focused on immediate safety failures and the chain of decisions that allowed an unstable situation to turn lethal.

Media Spin vs. Public Interest: Misinformation Claims Add Heat

One organization focused on transgender issues warned that the shooting has fueled misinformation about trans people and that the suspect’s transgender identity is being weaponized in public discourse. That may be true in some corners of the internet, but the available reporting does not specify which claims are false or provide a clear accounting of what is circulating. Without that detail, “misinformation” becomes an elastic label that can be used either responsibly—or as a shortcut to shut down legitimate questions.

The Policy Question That Won’t Go Away: Seizure, Return, and Household Risk

The case is already raising questions about firearm seizure-and-return policies, especially when authorities respond to mental-health and self-harm concerns. One expert observation cited in reporting pointed to a developing issue: risk may arise from someone else in the household rather than the legal owner alone, and the policy terrain is not well tested. For Americans watching from a constitutional perspective, the principle is straightforward: punish criminal misuse and address credible threats, but don’t use tragedy as a pretext for sweeping, rights-eroding crackdowns.

For now, the most important fact is also the most frustrating one: investigators still have not publicly accounted for the origin of the main firearm believed to have caused the greatest damage. Until that is resolved, officials, media, and the public will keep circling the same core questions—who had access, what warnings were missed, and what changes would actually prevent another school from becoming a crime scene. The victims’ families deserve more than political narratives.