The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

Priorities! They wouldn't know what a priority is if it bit them them on the derrière. How about corruption in the construction industry and connections to organized crime. Then there's a wild cat strike by the construction unions against proposed changes to how unions can hire workers and threats of violence against provincial ministers and allegations of intimidation and violence on the job site? And the Quebec government just sticks its head in the sand.

Mods: If this doesn't have its own thread may be we can start one?

Go ahead and start one. The forum you're in 'Canadian Politics' is probably as good a place as any.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While we can argue whether or not C-68 has saved a life, we can sadly ponder that it may have cost at least one.

Link to full presentation http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Civitas.htm A bit dated but still topical.

Excerpt from:
BILL C-68 – FIREARMS FIASCO
A PRESENTATION TO CIVITAS
Vancouver, BC
by Garry Breitkreuz, MP
for Yorkton-Melville, Saskatchewan
April 27, 2002


BILL C-68 is Fatally Flawed
 

And I mean the word fatal when I say fatally flawed.

Mr. Abraham Zarpa of Nain, Labrador, was prohibited from owning firearms.  On December 1, 1999, this prohibition order was lifted under section 113 of the Criminal Code -  a section that was amended by Bill C-68. This section allows a prohibition order to be lifted by a “competent authority” if the person needs a firearm for sustenance or employment purposes.  The Chief Firearms Officer of the Province of Newfoundland opposed the lifting of the prohibition order because of previous violence and weapons offences committed by Mr. Zarpa.

The court order, permitted by section 113, required the RCMP to give Mr. Zarpa his firearms when he wanted to go hunting.  Mr. Zarpa was to return his firearms to the RCMP after each hunting trip.

On March 3, 2000, Mr. Zarpa went to the RCMP detachment and signed out his .223 calibre rifle from the RCMP.  On March 8, 2000, 15-year-old Martin Angnatok was murdered with this same firearm in Mr. Zarpa’s house, and Mr. Zarpa was charged with 2nd degree murder.  Despite a court-ordered publication ban, we obtained the facts of the case from the transcript of the Preliminary Hearing held in December of 2000.

Following the 3-day preliminary hearing, Mr. Zarpa was held over for trial on the murder charge.  On January 21, 2002, the court ordered a stay of proceedings.

Without the amendment for lifting a firearms prohibition passed in Bill C-68, 15-year-old Martin Angnatok may still have been alive today.  In the very least, the RCMP would not have been forced to hand over the murder weapon.

You know the famous line that all anti-gun types resort to when the logic of all their arguments is defeated?  “If it saves just one life.” 

Well, what would they say if they learned that Bill C-68 very likely cost one life?

 

 

[Kat Stevens]

Ultimately it's annoyance, and a minor annoyance at that. The money's already blown setting it up, and it basically costs nothing to keep it at this point, so why make such a production about it? It's just something to hand to rural voters. I own guns and I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.

Yes, I can't count the number of times the front of my house in rural Alberta has been peppered with .270 rounds by some liquored up hick with his legally obtained firearm.  Oh, wait, I can... zero.

 

[ballz]

Hmmm... can anybody think of a way I can dress up as the Long Gun Registry just riddled with bullets for Halloween this wkend?????

 

[Lance Wiebe]

So, now I am curious.  As an owner of non-restricted weapons, I was forced to obtain a PAL.  If the registry is done away with, does this mean I no longer will require a PAL?  Or; will a PAL still be required?  I really don't have much of a problem in having a license in order to prove that I can legally own firearms, but I haven't heard anything about the PAL.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Hmmm... can anybody think of a way I can dress up as the Long Gun Registry just riddled with bullets for Halloween this wkend?????

Get cardboard, make it white, write Long Gun Registry on top, shoot it, and finally attach rope to it, perhaps noose shaped, and put it around your neck.

 

[ballz]

Get cardboard, make it white, write Long Gun Registry on top, shoot it, and finally attach rope to it, perhaps noose shaped, and put it around your neck.

That's a good start. Here's what I'm thinking. I'll dress up in all white, and make bloody bullet holes in myself as well. Instead of putting it around my neck, I'll make a hole for my face and put a few bloody bullet holes in my forehead as well.

Looks like this is a good excuse to go to the range tomorrow, wooo!

 

[marshall sl]

Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??

Because no one will use the registry to ban your car or dog

 

[Kat Stevens]

Because no one will use the registry to ban your car or dog

Unless you own a pit bull in Ontario, then they take it away and kill it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, now I am curious.  As an owner of non-restricted weapons, I was forced to obtain a PAL.  If the registry is done away with, does this mean I no longer will require a PAL?  Or; will a PAL still be required?  I really don't have much of a problem in having a license in order to prove that I can legally own firearms, but I haven't heard anything about the PAL.

Lance,

Possession, Acquisition License. You, the person (licensee), will still have to be licensed(PAL) to own firearms. If C-19 passes unchanged and if all you have is non restricted long guns, you will not have to keep those firearms 'registered'. You will not be required to keep that little 3x5 piece of paper (registration) that makes you a criminal, in the eyes of the law, if you lose it or fail to produce it.

A PAL is not necessarily an indication that you actually own any firearms at all, just that you can acquire and possess them based on the conditions of type listed on the back. (Non Restricted, Restricted and Prohibited) If you still have a firearm in your possession, do not let your PAL lapse. Again you'll become a criminal automatically. Police in Toronto have gone around and confiscated collections from people with lapsed PALs. To ensure mine doesn't lapse, I reapply eight to ten months prior to the expiry date. It costs nothing except a picture, time to fill in the form and a stamp. Renewals are free.

Lots of people have PALs, but no firearms.

 

[m.k]

Lots of people have PALs, but no firearms.

I have my NR and R PAL and I own 0 firearms

 

[Loachman]

Never going to happen.

Oh, no?

The same has been said about the registry portion of this legislation.

I'd actually like to see the resources wasted on the registry directed to better screening of license applicants, especially restricted license applicants. That might keep some of the bad eggs, like Kimveer Gill and Edward Paredes, legal licensed owners who killed people, from getting licenses in the first place.

I will not entirely disagee with this, however it is impossible to predict future criminal tendencies. Licensing cannot screen out every potential crook or loon, regardless of how it is made "better" - and I would welcome your recommendations for doing so. What would you add?

Anybody planning to commit a crime with a firearm can completely skip the licensing step anyway. Screening can prevent somebody from obtaining a licence, but that does not, cannot, and never will equate to preventing that person from obtaining an actual firearm. For that simple reason, it is useless as a crime-prevention/reduction tool. It achieves nothing.

The old FAC system performed the same function as licensing does today. It did not, however, criminalize firearms owners. It was neither more nor less effective than licensing, but it was much less offensive.

That might keep some of the bad eggs, like Kimveer Gill and Edward Paredes, legal licensed owners who killed people, from getting licenses in the first place.

Yup,  maybe. And maybe not. But so what if it does? Lack of licence is not much of an impediment to actually obtaining a firearm, especially for somebody harbouring criminal intent.

What freedoms, specifically? There's no right to keep and bear arms provided for in Canada's Constitution.

This recent article explains it fairly well:

NATIONAL POST - FULL COMMENT - OCTOBER 17, 2011 Firearms laws deny law-abiding citizens their rights By Solomon Friedman http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/17/solomon-friedman-firearms-laws-deny-law-abiding-citizens-their-rights/

The Conservative government has pledged to scrap the long-gun registry, a move welcomed by Canada's law-abiding firearms owners. It is unfortunate, however, that the discussion has focused exclusively on the long-gun registry. All the involved parties - politicians, policy makers and commentators - are missing the forest for the trees. In fact, the long-gun registry is the least offensive portion of the Firearms Act and related legislation and regulations. Of course, it is overly expensive, wasteful and there is no evidence of improved public safety. But at least its constitutional. Other provisions of the Firearms Act are far more problematic and seem to run directly counter to the most fundamental freedoms at the heart of our democracy. A fellow who has been involved in shooting sports for nearly three decades to me, "All I want, as a law-abiding gun owner is to have the same rights as any convicted criminal."

The right to silence. The presumption of innocence. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The right against self-incrimination.
These guarantees are centuries old, the product of hard-won struggles and well-established jurisprudence. And most people simply take them for granted. Canadians know that the police require a warrant to search their homes. No warrant, no entry, they assume. Moreover, the public is well aware of the notion that, in order for the police to enter your home, violate your privacy and examine your personal belongings, they must demonstrate reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed or that evidence of an offence will be located during the search. That's true of course, unless you are a licensed owner of a registered
firearm: Deer gun, bird gun or Olympic competition .22 caliber rifle - it doesn't matter.

Anyone with a firearms collection is subject, under the terms of the Firearms Act, to an inspection of their home by a "firearms officer."
Failure to comply with an officer's direction is a criminal offence. Moreover, anyone who owns even a single firearm is obligated, again on penalty of criminal charge, to produce their firearm for inspection on demand. Papers, please!

Canadians are also familiar with the right against self-incrimination and its legal Siamese twin, the right to silence. In a justice system which is founded on the presumption of innocence, the notion that the state can coerce an individual into participating in his own prosecution is both foreign and offensive. Except of course for the licensed owners of registered firearms. The Firearms Act requires gun owners to give "all reasonable assistance" to peace officers and firearms inspectors. Where ordinary suspected criminals correctly have the right to refuse to assist the state in building a case against them, gun owners are denied that critical freedom.

The gun control scheme also reverses the burden of proof which is at the heart of our common law system. For most offences, the Crown must prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The exception to the rule? Individuals are presumed to be in illegal possession of firearms unless they provide proof of licensing and registration. The state does not have to prove that the firearm is possessed illegally; the individual must prove that it is possessed legally.

Notice that there is no requirement that the police must suspect that the gun owner committed a crime. There is no need for even the most remote allegation of violence, personal instability or criminal intent. Simply by being a licenced gun owner, a "crime" committed by nearly two million Canadians, one is forced to surrender fundamental freedoms.

Now of course, there is one class of individual who is exempted from these draconian provisions. You see, to receive a firearms license and legally acquire firearms in Canada, one must pass an exhaustive background check. References are called, spouses are consulted, criminal histories are queried. Naturally, individuals with serious criminal records are denied firearms licenses. They are thereby essentially exempt from the onerous requirements of the Firearms Act and its Regulations. Only law-abiding citizens are subject to its provisions.

Canada's entire system of gun control laws is badly in need of review, repeal and reform, so that lawful gun owners are not denied the same democratic rights as any other citizen of our country. Wasteful and inefficient as it may be, the long gun registry is merely the tip of a deep and dangerous iceberg.

National Post
solomon@edelsonlaw.ca
Solomon Friedman is a criminal defence lawyer from Ottawa who specializes in defending firearms-related charges.

Meh. I don't care.

Neither did a lot of other law-abiding citizens who happened to own firearms until, to their surprise, shock, and horror, they ran afoul of one or more of the legislation's insidious provisions, or police misunderstanding of them.

If you have not read the legislation, you should.

There is good reason why those who own firearms and are familiar with the legislation and how it is likely to be misused and has been misused no longer trust police in general - an unfortunate unintended consequence of a bad law that has seen little discussion in the mainstream media.

Haven't really come up with a course of fire I've shot on a range where it was an issue.

That is where it is least likely to affect you.

 

[Loachman]

Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??

Failure to register which of the above will lead to a lengthy jail sentence?

Hint: It's not car, dog, cat, or even "etc".

Why should one have to register one's firearm? What useful purpose does it achieve? Why is that purpose so important that jail is the only penalty for non-compliance? What other personal property should one have to register? Should jail become the standard penalty for all refusal or failure to register anything?

There is no requirement to register a vehicle unless one intends to drive it on public roads. Registration is a means of taxation originally intended to help pay for those roads. Registration of a firearm provides no similar access to public ranges.

Pet registration is likewise a means of paying for animal control services.

None of those are contained in the Criminal Code. None of them carry jail sentences or criminal records as penalties for non-compliance (intentional or otherwise).

Simple ownership of an unregistered firearm is not a real crime, only a paper one, and only because Jean Chretien and Allan Rock said that it was.

 

[Scott]

Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??

So because you do one you must do another is good enough for you?

And while I can understand the eventual counterargument that firearms are deadly weapons I'll remind folks that baseball bats are as well, and I have yet to see an Easton be registered.

Sorry Bruce, your argument is silly and leads down a garden path.

 

[mariomike]

<snip>................more people survive because our knowledge of live-saving techniques are better.

Regarding that, and the title of the thread,
"We see up close and personal what happens when guns are used on people. Nobody knows more than paramedics the damage that guns can do, and we are strong advocates of gun control."
Peter MacIntyre, Manager of Community Safeguard Services for Toronto EMS.
Globe and Mail
30 June 2006
The Manager of Community Safeguard Services is an official media spokesperson for T-EMS.

 

[GAP]

From the article you posted...one comment stood out....
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/17/solomon-friedman-firearms-laws-deny-law-abiding-citizens-their-rights/

Michael Shannon
I think people who argue that the administrative gun regulations target lawful owners and not criminals misunderstand the intent of the laws. The purpose of the laws is to reduce gun ownership to the point that private ownership of firearms can be ended. This (like the UK) isn't designed to be done over night but gradually by the imposition of  "sensible anti-crime" provisions. Break downs in the system will be proff more laws are required.

The method will rely on divide and conquer. First "We're all for the hunters and farmers". Then we only care about "non-sporting guns". Finally "Dangerous repeating weapons".  It works. How many times have you seen "I'm a deer hunter but no one needs a handgun". Here's news. Most MPs doubt your "need" to hunt deer.

No sentient person can believe that people bent on murder, gangsters or terrorists give a hoot (even if they know about them) about firearms regulations. The aim of the laws is to make gun ownership less enjoyable, more expensive and somehow "strange". Gradually fewer people will own guns and eventually private ownership can be made illegal- with some out for subsistence hunters etc.

Why? The majority of the Liberal Party and NDP and many Red Tories see gun ownership as diametrically opposed to their vision of a Europeanized Canada. They associate private gun ownership with the U.S. and an older Canada they want to see disappear. It's about culture not crime.

So when you point out to the feds that regulation X makes no sense because no self respecting criminal would obey it their answer is "exactly". That's why suggestions to simplify the laws- for example deeming the PAL or registration certificate as the ATT get such short shrift. The aim isn't to make things simpler- it's to make the owners go through unnecessary hoops.

 

[Nemo888]

It does seem redundant. You need to get a license to buy one. Then you need to register them after you buy them.

 

[RangerRay]

Apparently, Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen will be publishing the registry online...

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/citizens-mcgregor-is-posting-7million-gun-registries-records-on-line/

http://afewtastefulsnaps.net/?p=1365

Anyone else see any privacy and/or legal issues with doing this?

 

[GAP]

That's a huge issue.....first how does he get access to it, then the privacy concerns....

 

[Redeye]

I will not entirely disagee with this, however it is impossible to predict future criminal tendencies. Licensing cannot screen out every potential crook or loon, regardless of how it is made "better" - and I would welcome your recommendations for doing so. What would you add?

As I understand it - it was before my time - before C-68 passed, getting a handgun permit (ie, a Restricted PAL) involved an actual interview where you had to go to the Local Constabulary and actually present yourself as an applicant and explain yourself. I don't see that as being a bad thing. Nor do I see a bit more detail in background checking as being especially intrusive. Hell, I know for a fact that they don't really follow the rules as they exist. I had no problem buying my first pistol (a POS Norinco NP18 that jammed EVERY SINGLE ROUND) from someone else, claiming I was an avid target shooter despite not belonging to a club.

Anybody planning to commit a crime with a firearm can completely skip the licensing step anyway. Screening can prevent somebody from obtaining a licence, but that does not, cannot, and never will equate to preventing that person from obtaining an actual firearm. For that simple reason, it is useless as a crime-prevention/reduction tool. It achieves nothing.

In principle, they can, yes. In practice, not so much. They'd still require access to an illegal firearm in some manner, which not everyone has. The system isn't perfect, but it's something that might work in some cases. If I was to extend your argument to licensing being totally pointless (as someone argued in the National Post yesterday), I'm pretty sure a lot of people sympathetic to scrapping the registry would be less supportive.

The old FAC system performed the same function as licensing does today. It did not, however, criminalize firearms owners. It was neither more nor less effective than licensing, but it was much less offensive.

I agree that changes at the very least need to be made to deal with the ridiculous application of certain provisions that criminalized people who inadvertently were outside the law, and the current blanket amnesty supposedly in effect isn't good enough. Don't mistake me for thinking the status quo is cool and there's not changes needing to be made.

There is good reason why those who own firearms and are familiar with the legislation and how it is likely to be misused and has been misused no longer trust police in general - an unfortunate unintended consequence of a bad law that has seen little discussion in the mainstream media.

The converse of that is that I've seen people who flagrantly violate certain provisions of the law as well. But I know what you mean - I tend to be skeptical of the intentions of any cops coming around. Polite, but skeptical. I do have an issue with the search/seizure provisions, particularly how they were used by certain agencies. Again, there's changes needed.

That is where it is least likely to affect you.

Really? Well, where would it affect me, then?