Gun law a dangerous power grab as well as being bad legislation,
C-68 is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction
by Peter Worthington
The Toronto Sun
28 January 1999
The <Gun> Control Bill (C-68) is now the law, even though Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, the Yukon and Northwest Territories are appealing it to the Supreme Court.
Already there is chaos in the registration process, as well as frustration and indignation among <gun> owners and others who feel the federal government is immune to common sense or reason.
Contrary to the government's claim that this law is aimed at fighting crime and reducing violence (it will have no appreciable effect on either), it is really about power - raw, naked power - with Ottawa establishing a precedent for intruding into matters of provincial jurisdiction.
Restricting firearms is a popular issue, especially among urban folk. And the full weight of government propaganda is directed against those who challenge, much less defy, this legislation. Those who object to C-68 tend to be depicted - as one senior bureaucrat put it - as "aging, white male sport shooters" redneck farmers, or incipient National Rifle Association nutbars.
Many who might otherwise object to federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction don't like guns and are confused by the <gun> issue, which they don't understand. Many view those who oppose registration as <gun> nuts and fruit loops - easy to malign; difficult to admire.
Essential issue
While some newspaper
editorials and media commentators have questioned Ottawa's apparent obsession
with <gun> controls, few have focused on the essential issue - federal
vs. provincial rights.
Editorially, the Windsor Star has admirably defined the crux of C-68: "It amounts to a unilateral power grab that threatens to undermine the delicate balance that exists between federal and provincial powers."
Consider: the Fathers of Confederation ordained that the essential responsibilities of the federal government were to maintain peace, order and good government in areas that didn't fall within provincial responsibility.
Exclusively in the provincial domain were property and civil rights - both of which are germane to C-68.
By a 3-2 decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled C-68 is within federal powers since it is aimed at curtailing crime. At the same time it acknowledged that the law intrudes on provincial responsibilities. Ostensibly, then, fighting crime is the constitutional justification for <gun> registration, You can bet the farm that when time and occasion seem propitious, registration will be amended to confiscation. Ah, but here comes the chicken bone in the throat - if one wants to see it: registration of guns, especially long guns, has zilch effect on crime.
The feds have already been caught using distorted and inflated RCMP statistics to pretend 623 violent offences in 1993 involved firearms when, in fact, the true figure was 73. (It was later rationalized as "A matter of interpretation.")
Crime statistics are plunging too. Homicides are at a 30-year-low. <Gun> crimes, consistently, are mostly committed with unregistered, illegal handguns; hardly ever with long guns.
In Australia when <gun> owners were forced to surrender guns, homicides rose the following year, as did assaults and robberies. Conversely, in American states that enabled law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, homicides plunged.
As political gamesmanship, Justice Minister Anne McLellan is making it easier for aboriginal peoples to have guns (to "respect traditional practices"), yet the rate of suicides and murders among native peoples is some 10 times the Canadian average, mostly involving guns.
All this is easily provable, yet the government isn't the slightest interested - which indicates an agenda other than curbing crime and violence. Rather, it is acquiring more power for the sake of power or, probably, preparation for the next phase - to confiscate guns.
Dissenting opinion
Dissenting Alberta Judge Carole Conrad opined: "Whatever the power of long
guns, it pales in comparison to the untrammeled power of the federal government
to arbitrarily take over the field of regulation of firearms ... thereby ignoring
the division of federal and provincial powers." Guns are property, under the
sway of provinces, and there is nothing resembling a national emergency (other
than federal intrusion) associated with <gun> ownership.
Although C-68 doesn't (yet) prevent ownership of guns -just their registration - any who refuse to comply become instant criminals. In the 1970s the government (Liberals again) cancelled <gun> registration plans because of horrendous costs. Any law that makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens for no good reason, and which is unlikely to be obeyed, and which costs more than the benefits derived, and hasn't been carefully thought out, is a bad law.
The prime minister could stop this nonsense if he wished. He controls Parliament and has absolute power to appoint judges and senators. All without checks or balances. If the Supreme Court doesn't torpedo Bill C-68's invasion into provincial jurisdiction, a precedent will be set and who knows where the next attack will be.
This federal government is foe to freedom and property rights, and the provinces are the only bodies that can check a rapacious Ottawa.
Home > Research archive > 1999 > Gun law a dangerous power grab as well as being bad legislation, C-68 is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction