Canadian Federal lawyers fear gun-law chaos
Calgary Herald
12 September 1997
Gun ownership and use would be thrown wide open in Canada if the licensing and registration provisions of the new gun-control law are ruled invalid, federal lawyers argued in an Edmonton court Thursday.
''The licensing and registration provisions are integrated, interwoven and vital to an effective Firearms Act,'' said Peter Martin, the federal lawyer fighting a provincial challenge to the new law.
Martin raised the spectre of chaos if the Alberta Court of Appeal accepts the argument that the federal gun law requiring registration of all firearms is unconstitutional.
''You must understand that if you yield to the Alberta argument, you also remove the constitutional underpinning of existing sections of gun-control legislation,'' Martin told the five-member panel on the fourth day of hearings.
The hearing is expected to wind up today, but a judgment is not anticipated for several months.
Six provincial and territorial governments, led by Alberta, have argued that sections of the 1995 law are an unwarranted intrusion into provincial authority. They contend that forcing all gun owners to submit to a screening and licensing scheme and register all their weapons infringes on provincial powers to regulate property and civil rights.
But Martin told the court that laws against careless use of firearms, carrying concealed weapons and laws against prohibited weapons would all be in jeopardy ''if you accept the argument that the provinces have sole authority to regulate (gun) possession and the federal government is limited to criminal use.''
However, he appeared to backtrack under pointed questioning by several members of the court panel. He said the court is only being asked to rule on licensing and registration.
He asked that the court consider both sections vital to the law and that they not be looked at in isolation.
''Canada's position is that they cannot be divided up from each other,'' explained federal spokesman Christopher Ram. ''The two are integrated.
''The taking out of one or the other out of the scheme would seriously damage the scheme. Both are necessary to achieve the public safety goal of the legislation.''
But lawyers on both sides of the challenge privately suggest that a successful challenge of the new licensing rules could be used to contest the 20-year-old system requiring gun owners to obtain a Firearms Acquisition Certificate.
Martin argued that Ottawa's power to impose gun-control limitations is justified by national concerns over public safety.
Firearms -- even shotguns and rifles -- are designed to cause death or bodily injury and it is this concern that is the underlying purpose of the new act, Martin said, defending Ottawa's use of its criminal law power.
Martin said the federal government has had some form of gun control since 1892, including restrictions on handguns and military assault weapons.
''These new provisions are mere extensions of existing rules,'' he argued.
When questioned by the judges about why Parliament did not make public safety an explicitly stated part of the law's purpose, Martin said the court must look at the bill as a whole -- including the parliamentary debates which led to the creation of the new law.
''Both licensing and registration are vital to prevent crime and the social harm resulting from the misuse of firearms. Therefore, the Firearms Act falls within Ottawa's exclusive power to enact criminal law,'' Martin said.
(Copyright The Calgary Herald)
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Canadian Federal lawyers fear gun-law chaos