Owning a firearm...is it legal or not??
Fast approaching is Bruce Montague's constitutional challenge of the firearms act. I have been around firearms all my life, I see them as a tool. As a means to do something like you would use a knife to cut, I would use a firearm to shoot. I am not a hunter, I do not hunt anything really (outside of the occasional gopher!), so people ask me "then why do you own a gun?". This is a perfectly legitimate question...to them. But to me, it's akin to asking someone why a city person owns a truck and not a more economical car? Really it is the same question...he owns a truck because he likes them. Maybe he likes the option of hauling things, maybe he needs one for work. Or maybe he is just a "truck enthusiast" who enjoys truck ownership. I own firearms because I like them, and use them to target shoot and skeet shoot. And, I admit I have been to the odd farmers land to rid him of some rodents in the past. Now, I belong to a pistol club and quite regularly take my pistol out to fire off 50 to 100 rounds on weekends. I simply enjoy it, I guess I am a "gun enthusiast".
What is my point to this banter? well, the way I see it I am being unfairly labeled, and subject to some extremely harsh laws and penalties just for owning a firearm. Now, I am not talking about automatic, military style assault rifles here. I mean, my pistol, my .22 and my shotgun. You see, I started with the vehicle analogy for a reason so let me spell it out for you. If you want to drive your vehicle on a public road, you need a licence. Makes sense to me doesn't it, I mean you need to show that you had SOME training and are reasonably competent behind the wheel so you hopefully won't hurt yourself or anyone else.
No problem, as a firearms owner, I too have to have a licence. And just a drivers licencing has "conditions" or endorsements so too does my firearms licence. Mine has a "restricted" endorsement which means I can own restricted firearms (like my pistol...ahhh good ol' GLOCK). Now, if you also wanted to drive that vehicle, on top of the licence you need to register it and have insurance. Ok, no worries, makes sense accidents may happen and you need some regulations and insurance to make sure you are covered in the event of an incident. No worries, now, my firearms need to be registered also. Ok no worries there, for me...I don't mind doing that. For some gun owners this is akin to raping and murdering your sister! But up to now I say, ok I can live with that because despite the somewhat inconvenient red tape it doesn't stop me from owning and using my firearms as I like to. No worries.
Now you need to pay close attention here. This is the difference between the two. If you DO NOT drive on a public road or just want to have the vehicle without registering or insuring it you can. You can still OWN the vehicle even if you never use it, its your property you legally acquired and so not a big deal. However, I can NOT own my property UNLESS it is registered AND I have a licence. So what happens if my licence expires? Well if you get pulled over by the police and oops, your licence is expired you get a warning and perhaps a ticket. 99% of the time, the police officer will let you go with said ticket and DRIVE away even without a licence. As a firearms owner, if I simply own a firearm without a valid licence I can go to jail for 5 years! Period, I get arrested and hauled to the clinker! I have committed no crime, I could have NEVER taken a firearm anywhere out of my house, yet I goto jail. Does this seem reasonable to you?
So the next time you think about guns in Canada think about that. Bruce isn't fighting the law because he is a criminal, he is fighting for what is right and just. Not to own bazooka's or automatic firearms or grenades etc etc. But to be able to have a firearm (a non restricted firearm) without a licence. Like the "old" laws under the FAC system allowed every Canadian to do. The facts are this, C-68 (the "firearms act") that the liberals brought in 11 years ago makes every gun owner a criminal. Your only protection is this little plastic licence that expires every 5 years. Throw in the reverse ownus clause (which says under the act, ANY firearms offence means you are guilty period, you the individual must prove your innocence), search and seizure clause which allows any "firearms" officer to enter your home anytime and search for anyplace he may reasonably think firearms are being stored - without a warrant, complaint or criminal action nor intent proven or accused. Does this seem fair or right? I could go on and on about other "clauses" this little act subject firearms owners to, but I think you get my point.
I am all for gun control, licencing and minimum safety training. But I draw the line at being guilty and having to prove my innocence and I think if you were in my shoes you would be just as upset as I am. So in March, Bruce M. is taking the law to court in the first constitutional challenge this act has been subject to. It doesn't matter if you are "pro" or "anti" gun, what matters here is do I have the same rights as you? The right to be innocent and PROVEN guilty, does the state have the right to invade my home at anytime and demand to inspect my firearms, their storage etc without any probable cause? These are the basics of the Canadian Judicial system...why am I not protected by my constitution? Can you explain it? I can't...
What is my point to this banter? well, the way I see it I am being unfairly labeled, and subject to some extremely harsh laws and penalties just for owning a firearm. Now, I am not talking about automatic, military style assault rifles here. I mean, my pistol, my .22 and my shotgun. You see, I started with the vehicle analogy for a reason so let me spell it out for you. If you want to drive your vehicle on a public road, you need a licence. Makes sense to me doesn't it, I mean you need to show that you had SOME training and are reasonably competent behind the wheel so you hopefully won't hurt yourself or anyone else.
No problem, as a firearms owner, I too have to have a licence. And just a drivers licencing has "conditions" or endorsements so too does my firearms licence. Mine has a "restricted" endorsement which means I can own restricted firearms (like my pistol...ahhh good ol' GLOCK). Now, if you also wanted to drive that vehicle, on top of the licence you need to register it and have insurance. Ok, no worries, makes sense accidents may happen and you need some regulations and insurance to make sure you are covered in the event of an incident. No worries, now, my firearms need to be registered also. Ok no worries there, for me...I don't mind doing that. For some gun owners this is akin to raping and murdering your sister! But up to now I say, ok I can live with that because despite the somewhat inconvenient red tape it doesn't stop me from owning and using my firearms as I like to. No worries.
Now you need to pay close attention here. This is the difference between the two. If you DO NOT drive on a public road or just want to have the vehicle without registering or insuring it you can. You can still OWN the vehicle even if you never use it, its your property you legally acquired and so not a big deal. However, I can NOT own my property UNLESS it is registered AND I have a licence. So what happens if my licence expires? Well if you get pulled over by the police and oops, your licence is expired you get a warning and perhaps a ticket. 99% of the time, the police officer will let you go with said ticket and DRIVE away even without a licence. As a firearms owner, if I simply own a firearm without a valid licence I can go to jail for 5 years! Period, I get arrested and hauled to the clinker! I have committed no crime, I could have NEVER taken a firearm anywhere out of my house, yet I goto jail. Does this seem reasonable to you?
So the next time you think about guns in Canada think about that. Bruce isn't fighting the law because he is a criminal, he is fighting for what is right and just. Not to own bazooka's or automatic firearms or grenades etc etc. But to be able to have a firearm (a non restricted firearm) without a licence. Like the "old" laws under the FAC system allowed every Canadian to do. The facts are this, C-68 (the "firearms act") that the liberals brought in 11 years ago makes every gun owner a criminal. Your only protection is this little plastic licence that expires every 5 years. Throw in the reverse ownus clause (which says under the act, ANY firearms offence means you are guilty period, you the individual must prove your innocence), search and seizure clause which allows any "firearms" officer to enter your home anytime and search for anyplace he may reasonably think firearms are being stored - without a warrant, complaint or criminal action nor intent proven or accused. Does this seem fair or right? I could go on and on about other "clauses" this little act subject firearms owners to, but I think you get my point.
I am all for gun control, licencing and minimum safety training. But I draw the line at being guilty and having to prove my innocence and I think if you were in my shoes you would be just as upset as I am. So in March, Bruce M. is taking the law to court in the first constitutional challenge this act has been subject to. It doesn't matter if you are "pro" or "anti" gun, what matters here is do I have the same rights as you? The right to be innocent and PROVEN guilty, does the state have the right to invade my home at anytime and demand to inspect my firearms, their storage etc without any probable cause? These are the basics of the Canadian Judicial system...why am I not protected by my constitution? Can you explain it? I can't...
posted by Simon at 6:54 p.m.
1 Comments:
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment
<< Home