THE NEWSLETTER OF THE RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS OWNERS COALITION                                                                          FEB99/MAR99

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

The recent decision by the Alberta Supreme Court endorsing the federal government's plan to register all firearms should alarm anyone who is concerned about individual rights and freedoms. This case is less about firearms than it is about the court's eagerness to tolerate the federal government's efforts to increase its powers to regulate and confiscate private property.

The Alberta Supreme Court split 3 to 2 in supporting the constitutionality of the Firearms Act of 1995 (Bill C-68). The question the court had to decide was whether the constitutional powers of the provinces to regulate private property could be pushed aside by the federal government through its criminal law powers. After the passage of Bill C-68 in 1995, four provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario), plus both territories, challenged the constitutionality of the federal firearms registration.

Although four of the five Alberta justices agreed that the law did intrude upon provincial powers, two of these four thought that Ottawa's claims were justified. Thus, combined with the one justice who had no reservations about Ottawa's intrusiveness, a majority of the court supported Ottawa. The dissenting justices argued that the dangers of firearms paled in comparison with the danger of the federal government intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Alberta and three other provinces have already appealed this decision directly to the Canadian Supreme Court.

According to the Canadian constitution, the provinces have the power to regulate private property. For example, in addition to regulating firearms, the provinces also regulate the sales of alcohol and automobiles. Since more people are killed annually in incidents involving either cars or alcohol, why couldn't Ottawa assert control over these areas as well? In a typical year, 3,400 people die in motor vehicle accidents, while around 50 people die from firearms accidents. Of the approximately 600 homicides each year in Canada, alcohol is implicated in about half of these; firearms are involved in less than one-third.

The provinces currently regulate all rifles and shotguns (97 percent of all firearms in Canada) through their hunting regulations. But in 1995, Ottawa decided it wanted to take over the regulation of firearms, claiming that they were so dangerous to the public peace they should be regulated under the criminal code. In addition to requiring Canadians to register all rifles and shotguns, "field and stream guns," for the first time, Bill C-68 also arbitrarily prohibited and confiscated over 60 percent of all currently registered firearms in Canada. (These were almost all small handguns and even included several types of Olympic target pistols.) Moreover, Bill C-68 requires firearms owners to admit police or any other designated government "inspector" into their homes (or offices, or anywhere else) to check on their firearms or the required permits. The residents of the house are legally required to answer the inspector's questions and to cooperate fully with the inspector. The residents may not remain silent. The inspector may also take copies of anything he or she wants-including computer records or files-to be used as evidence. When the police contact a person suspected of all other crimes (except the drug laws), there are certain procedures the police must follow to "search and/or seize" evidence. Suspects may remain silent and do not have to answer questions that may implicate them. None of this holds true with people suspected of violating firearms laws

Moreover, the firearms may not be found and the police may only have "suspected" them to have been there. The residents are still required to cooperate fully with the inspectors. Charges may be laid against the suspected firearms owners afterwards. (Note that no guns actually need to be found; all that is required is that the police suspect that someone has guns.)

Even if we put aside the quibble that the Firearms Act puts the government in the bizarre position of selling permits to break the criminal code, it is quite shocking to use the criminal code in this way. If the federal government is entitled to take control over any domain in the country simply by claiming that "ownership is potentially dangerous" to the public peace, no powers are left to the provinces.

Whether Canadians agree or disagree with the objectives of gun registration, they must be concerned about the process by which this is being achieved. As I have documented in a 1995 Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin, Gun Control is not Crime Control, there is little reason to believe that gun registration will achieve the control over the criminal use of firearms that many desire. While registration won't work, it will be very expensive.

In the past four years, Ottawa has slashed the RCMP budget by $174 million, and the total number of serving officers in the RCMP has declined. At the same time, the budget for firearms registration has escalated. In 1995, the Justice Minister of the day promised it would cost no more than $89 million to register all firearms in Canada. In 1998, the current Justice Minister, Anne McLellan admitted that the Department of Justice will spend $120 million in this fiscal year alone. And the government appears to be burying many of the expenditures in other budgets. The total spent so far is estimated to be at least $200 million, and may be more than $300 million.

So, gun registration will be expensive, ineffective and, with the court ruling, another excuse to centralize power. At the very least, this is a policy which deserves another close look.

WERE YOU UPSET OR OFFENDED???

If you are a current FAC holder, you probably received a letter in the mail recently from A.J. (Tony) Heemskerk, Chief Provincial Firearms Officer dated December 10, 1998 regarding The Firearms Act and related changes to the Criminal Code of Canada (Bill C-68). This letter arrived in a double window envelope – the return address portion stating "Chief Firearms Officer, Security Programs Division, Ministry of the Attorney General….." and the addressee area titled "To Be Opened by Addressee Only" with your name and address in full. Even tiny brains may be able to figure out that firearms will probably be present at those addresses.

One of the issues that firearm owners brought up to then-Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, was our security as gun owners once the new mandatory registration system was brought in. We were assured that the computer system was the best, the security within the system the best, we had nothing to fear, etc. etc. In fact, Section 8-20 of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course states "Avoid advertising about the firearms in your home. You may be inviting theft"

What bone-head authorized the return address of Chief Firearms Officer, Security Programs Division, to be clearly visible on every envelope that was mailed to a current holder of an FAC??!!

Will the same stunt be pulled when they get around to sending a similar letter to holders of expired FAC’s??

I feel my security and therefore my safety could have been compromised by this very thing..

How do YOU feel??

The Canadian Institute for Legislative Action is pleased to announce the appointment of Professor Al Dorans to the position of Director of Operations. Professor Dorans is best known to Canada’s recreational firearms community as National Chairman of the FED UP II Rally, the largest political protest in Canada’s history.

As CILA’s principal educational officer and federal representative in the National Capital Region, Al will bring a new standard of professionalism to the firearms organizations of Canada.  As a recently retired Professor of Education from the University of Ottawa and Past President, Ontario Association for Curriculum Development, Professor Dorans is uniquely equipped for the challenges of educating members of parliament, bureaucrats, firearms owners, the media and the citizens of Canada.   Al’s specialties in Curriculum Design and Evaluation and Creative Teaching Skills enable him to initiate, design, implement, and evaluate educational programs that will benefit Canada’s firearms owners.

Al’s shooting background includes many years as a Distinguished Marksman with the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (DCRA).. He is a fierce defender of our shooting freedoms.

CILA’s Executive Director Tony Bernardo says; "We look forward to a long and productive relationship with Professor Dorans, as a critical member of the CILA team.  It’s great to have him aboard."

Sat. 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION ARENA

Win a Beautiful sako 75 Deluxe Rifle When you purchase a 24 carat gold plated CILA Lapel Pin for $49.95 you will receive a coupon for a chance on the CILA Anniversary Commemorative Rifle. Only 200 pins/coupons available.

Responsible Firearms Owners Not Welcome at Tradex Outdoor Show

It appears that the organizers of the outdoors show have a problem with firearms. They tried to exclude us from last years show but relented under the pressure from a local retailer. This year they have again denied us a table at the show and are totally unwilling to reconsider this decision. Two years ago they eliminated a fast-draw club that had been drawing large crowds for years. It would seem that the Liberal government has convinced this organizer that guns are bad!