My Aim is True: The Canadian Long-Gun Registry

     I must apologize for my first post. Done in haste and at the spur of the moment, it was an instantaneous reaction to a heated discussion I had with some blogger named Robert. It lacked cohesive thought and structure (not to mention prose and eloquence, as commentator Leann Schriff wryly noted). Most importantly, it just delved into one side of an issue. My side. In no way did it represent both sides of the argument, giving it the stench of a propaganda essay. Call it a rookie mistake, but as in all mishaps, there is a lesson learned. So here it is. The story of the Canadian long-gun registry.

     Bill C-68, or the Canadian Firearms Registry was introduced to the House of Commons by the newly minted Jean Chretien government in 1993. Passed by Parliament after a year of deliberations, it was given Royal Assent in 1995 and became, to this day the strictest gun-control law in Canadian history. It's aim was to curb a rising tide of gun-related crimes and violence by providing a database for government and law-enforcement officials to keep track of unaccounted for guns and weapons across the country. It included strict provisions on firearm and ammunition storage and required gun owners to coordinate with police agencies on matters of weapon transport.  It was supported by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, various anti-crime and violence agencies, such as violence against women groups and a broad spectrum of representative interests among the general populace.

     On the opposing side were gun-rights advocates. Gun afficionados, hunters and sportsmen. They argued about privacy issues. First, they said that a government that is allowed to keep a track record of it's citizens is tantamount to a creation of a police state. And that a government database that contains their names and addresses could leave them vulnerable to crimes such as robbery. Lastly, they said that a great majority of gun crimes are commited by people who don't have government issued gun licenses with unregistered illegal guns, therefore making the registry a rather useless and expensive program for fighting crime.

     Support and opposition to this bill ran across regional, cultural and political lines. Passed by the then Liberal government, it was opposed heavily in the western and mostly conservative parts of the country (Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan). Support was equally overwhelming in Central Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. Also it represented an urban/rural divide. Most urban dwellers, with a more cosmopolitan view support gun-control while rural residents, who are mostly social conservatives are opposed.

     So what do I make out of this argument ?

     There are conflicting reports with regards to the effectiveness of the gun registry. In a survey done by Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC), 74% of general duty police officers noted that having a registry database had proved beneficial in the outcome of major police operations. Edgar MacLeod, a former president of the police chiefs association noted that while the cost of the program has been an embarrassment, it has provided a valuable service. In  typical domestic violence situtations for instance, central dispatch or on board computers on cruisers have alerted officers to the presence of  registered firearms in the occupants' home and thereby limiting the risk of deadly confrontation between police and civilians.

     A report that came out of the office of the Auditor General, however disputes the argument that the program is meeting it's stated goal of improving public safety. It noted that the CAFC does not collect the necessary data that can analyze the registry's effect on minimizing firearm related deaths or injuries.

     But all this data, arguments and counter arguments are evidently pointless and immaterial. The main point of contention was, is and always will be- "SHOULD CIVILIANS BE ALLOWED TO ARM THEMSELVES  WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS ?"

     It is important to note that gun possesion in Canada is NOT a constitutionally mandated right. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not contain a clause analogous to the Second Amendment Right in the United States Constitution that succintly spells out the right of citizens to bear and keep firearms. However, based on the British North America Act of 1867, that paved the way for the creation of the Dominion of Canada, the country appropriated the 1689 English Bill of Rights that contained a provision (Protestant Rights) that entitled citizens of the Dominion limited rights on firearms aquisition subject to government restrictions.

     So the argument by some gun-rights advocates that it is a Canadian birthright to own and posses a gun is completely disingenuous. Gun ownership is simply a form of privilege and not a basic right. And as with other privileges, it is subject to RULES and REGULATIONS and RESTRICTIONS.

     It is, however in the general interest to keep the public safe. And the local police authorities, the civilian armed force charged with enforcing the law is part and parcel of that general public. And if the state uses the police service and chooses to put them in harm's way to protect the community,  then it is the duty of every member of the community to assist the police and give them the necessary tools to do their job. And keeping a gun registry does exactly that. The registry database helps minimize the risk, not just for police officers but for the citizenry as well.

     We all make choices in life. And with every choice, there is a corresponding responsibility and consequence. In a civilized and democratic community, we live by the rules, lettered by the laws that frame our society. I have my own rule. It states,  "FIRST, DO NO HARM". It's a damn good rule to live by. For my own good. For the public good.

an introduction to the blogosphere

     I have always wanted to put my thoughts in writing. The closest I've ever had to a burning ambition was to be a journalist. Until my dad shot that dream down. "No money in that goddamn thing", he said. I was about ten years old at the time. I'm 46 now, and my father is long gone. So here I am, Internet beware.

     So what do I write about now ? Politics ? Religion ? Sports ? Beauty contests ? Can't think of one particular topic that I care enough to dwell on, at the present moment. Even though there's plenty of stuff out there. New Orleans and the fifth year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina ? Glenn Beck's religion-as-politics rally in Washington, D.C. (on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's " I have a dream" civil rights speech) ? The hostage taking tragedy in the Philippines ? The trapped miners in Chile ? Hmmmmm.....

     What about a recent debate I had (like, just this afternoon) with my own brother-in-law ? About gun-control regulations ? What about that ?

     You see, what I don't understand about the opposition to registration by gun enthusiasts is their reason. Almost uniformly,  they would state that registration is part of a government conspiracy to take away their right to own these deadly weapons. My brother-in-law's reason was that if he, for whatever reason, fail to renew his gun license, the Toronto SWAT team would come bearing down on his front door.

     First of all, who could blame a police officer for approaching someone's property with extreme and utmost prejudice, if he or she knows there's a potential for deadly confrontation ? Secondly, if someone fails to renew something as important a gun license, who's fault is it ? The government ? Who's responsibility is it ? Isn't it primarily the holder of the said license ? So where does the conspiracy theory come into play ? Where is the deep, dark government agenda that aims to subvert people's freedoms ? If you fail to re-register, do you automatically lose the right to have a gun license ? I think not. I think my brother-in-law is just plain cuckoo.

     I do think though that there's a hidden motive among anti-control advocates with regards to gun regulations. And it's the same reason why they feel the need to own these types of weapons in the first place. Empowerment based on fear. Of what, I have no idea. Maybe, it's their own political or social prejudices. Or their own personal insecurities. Who knows ? I'm just a guy typing his first blog entry.

     But I do know that there's a great need for gun regulations. In the interest of public safety. For our own police officers' safety. For our own and our children's safety. Afterall, to be a part of decent society, we must sometimes look past our own interest and look after the greater need. It is not I but WE in a community, a city, a country. And the more the proper authorities can keep track of these deadly weapons, the less potential there is for conflict involving guns. And the lesser the conflict, the better WE evolve as a society. And the better WE feel about each other, the safer WE feel. And in great numbers, WE have nothing to fear.