sixty9santa
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I found this little article, and agree with it, about proposed changes to Bill C-68:
Position Paper on Bill C-68, the Firearms Act
Following are the most contentious issues regarding Bill C-68, the Firearms Act (Chapter 39, the Criminal Code of Canada) for the Recreational Firearms Community (RFC), and recommended changes we would support.
That the mandatory registration of firearms should be suspended.
Firearms registration has never proven a valuable tool in fighting crime and is strongly viewed by the RFC as a prelude to confiscation of private property. Maintaining accurate up-to-date information with such a system is impossible, and without absolutely accuracy, the data becomes meaningless and unreliable. In addition to its ineffectiveness, it is costly, intrusive and impossible to enforce. Suspending the registration of non-restricted firearms would allow the government to revisit this policy in light of the problems with the current system.
The great majority of the RFC does not support any firearms registry system, and many have chosen not to comply, far more than the government is willing to admit.
That section 117 of the Firearms Act to be removed or amended.
Legislation by Order in Council is seen as undemocratic by the RFC, without the parliamentary scrutiny of any new laws and regulations which will no doubt be implemented in the future. Abuses have already been apparent through the use of this section (e.g.. arbitrary firearms prohibitions).
That a License Amnesty should be granted.
It is taking a considerable amount of time for the CFC to process license applications, both new and renewals. As a result, many thousands of firearms owners find themselves technically in possession of their firearms illegally. Many firearms owners have applied for and not received their licenses due to the system backlog causing anxiety about potential criminal charges, particularly among the hunting community at this time of year.
Also, there are many hundreds of thousands of legitimate firearms owners who have not applied for a license and are now afraid of possible criminal prosecution. Many of these people were simply unaware of their legal obligations due to language and/or literacy problems, or lack of contact with mainstream information sources. The RFC feels the communications campaign was inadequate in its coverage.
To facilitate compliance, we recommend the Possession Only License be reinstated for a reasonable period of time, and every attempt be made to inform firearms owners across Canada. The RFC could assist in this endeavour, including clubs and dealers.
That Firearms Licenses should be lifetime in duration.
The "continuous eligibility" process built into the new system will immediately indentify any public safety risk factors on an ongoing basis, thereby eliminating the necessity of 5 year renewals. The rationale to renew anything more than the photograph merely extends the legislation's complexity and cost while inadvertently placing law-abiding citizens at risk of criminal charges.
That paperwork infractions (legislative and regulatory) should be decriminalized.
Currently, all paperwork infractions are criminal code violations. These should be downgraded to firearms act violations which do not carry criminal penalties, only fines, such as with the highway traffic act. This should also include Safe Storage, Display and Transportation and possession of an unregistered firearm by a licensed individual.
That the ‘use it or lose it’ section of the Act be eliminated.
Section 67(2) – This section is what we refer to as the ‘use it or lose it’ clause. It gives the power to the Chief Firearms Officer to refuse a license renewal for restricted firearms or prohibited handguns if, in their opinion, the firearms are not being used for the purpose the firearms were originally registered for. The revised section loosens the definition to any purpose described in section 28 of the Act. It is our recommendation that this entire section be removed from the act. The intent of the section is to force legal firearms owners to dispose of their personal property if, for whatever reason, they are no longer active in target shooting or collecting. How these activities are defined is still not decided and this section flies in the face of the rights of Canadians to own property. It gives unfettered power to a bureaucrat to determine if and what property a Canadian may own.
That the licensing and registration fees should be reduced and/or eliminated.
If the transfer is accomplished on line or by phone, we recommend the fee be eliminated with only a nominal fee instituted if the mail or fax is used. Using a Web site for registration, transfers and license renewals would reduce costs considerably. The "users" of the system are the Canadian general public, not merely firearms owners, and the fee structure should be supported by public funding.
That the Air Gun definitions be redefined.
Section 84 (3) (d) - The Air gun definition amendments were included to further define at what point an air gun becomes a firearm. This controversy began with the introduction and use of lightweight pellets which exceeded the previous 500 fps standard. Despite the fact that these lightweight pellets posed no more of a safety hazard than standard weight pellets, the increase in velocity caused a change in classification for these air guns. Unfortunately, what is contained in C-10a is a confusing solution that not only fails to clarify the issue but further compounds the problem. The Bill proposed to change the definition to an either/or standard of 500 fps or 5.7 joules of energy (4.2 ft/lbs). The stated interpretation of the Justice Ministry is that any air gun that ‘falls below’ either standard is not defined as a firearm for the purposes of the Act. However, the wording is so confusing that our lawyers have taken the interpretation that any air gun which ‘exceeds either standard is a firearm. The wording must be clarified to remove any questions about the intent of the provision. A significant percentage of the air guns in Canada are .22 calibre as opposed to the standard .177 calibre. The use of lightweight .22 pellets causes these air guns to exceed both proposed standards, in effect, re-creating the original problem.
Further, the new air gun provisions do not simplify the problem and in fact, makes the process worse by introducing an unrealistic energy standard to the equation. A simple change to the current British standard of 6 ft/lbs of energy for pistols and 12 ft/lbs of energy for rifles would solve the problem easily, for all calibre air guns. Most Olympic target air rifles (costing upwards of $1500) exceed the existing velocity standards creating problems for national and international athletes attending sporting events as well as hindering the development of Canada’s future Olympic potential. Adopting the British standard would go a long way to simplifying the process and reduce unintended complications.
That "alternate safety certification" should be implemented.
This change recognizes the reality that many Canadians have possessed and used firearms safely for many years, and credit for that experience must be reflected in any "alternate certification" schemes.
In addition, many firearms owners have received other excellent safety training courses in the form of Hunter Safety Training or military/police service and "alternate certification" must also recognize this higher level of safety education.
That "Authorizations to Transport" (ATT) for restricted and prohibited firearms should be included as a part of a firearms license.
Such firearms may only be discharged on an approved shooting range and if a person is authorized to "possess, acquire and use" restricted and prohibited firearms, then the transport permit becomes a redundancy. As well, the "continuous eligibility qualification" system is capable of responding to changes in that person's status further rendering the ATT as a waste of resources. This system should also provide authorization to transport on a Canada wide basis, eliminating the unnecessary step of separate ATTs being issued for crossing provincial borders.
That the discretionary powers granted to Firearms Officers should be replaced by criteria governing the issuance and revocation of licenses.
Reverse onus provisions must be rescinded, again, respecting the spirit and principles of the Canadian Legal System.
That arbitrary inspection and search and seizure powers by law enforcement officers should be eliminated as currently defined.
These powers are intrusive, unconstitutional and open to abuse and should be redrafted to establish limits. For example, the Act calls for mandatory inspections of anyone who owns 10 or more firearms which appears arbitrary.
That Sections 12(5) and 12(6) provisions (firearm prohibitions) be removed.
These sections apply to already legally owned firearms. Since these firearms are rarely involved in criminal activity and owners are subjected to scrutiny under the "continuous eligibility qualification" system, these sections provide no purpose other than harassment of the law abiding RFC. The status of these firearms should be returned to pre C-17 levels.
Section 12(6) – This is a very controversial section and one that is particularly resented by our membership. The handguns which were moved to prohibited status by this section comprises 58% of the legally registered handguns in the registry. They have been owned and used by Canadians for decades and there is no evidence that these legally possessed firearms are any more likely to be used in criminal acts. The delayed confiscation of registered firearms also reinforces the belief that the only purpose of a rifle and shotgun registry is for the eventual confiscation of these firearms. This has severely impacted on the rate of compliance to the long gun registration requirements.
There is also the question of compensation and reinstatement of ‘grandfathered’ status to owners of prohibited 12(6) handguns that bowed to the intimidating and threatening letters sent to them by the RCMP. Thousands of firearms owners turned in their legally owned and registered property for destruction under threat of arrest and prosecution. They should be compensated for their loss and a process developed which will allow them to reenter the ‘grandfathered’ class.
Another serious situation has developed in regards to unregistered prohibited handguns (and in fact, this situation affects all unregistered prohibited firearms) in that there is currently no provision to allow for the registration of prohibited firearms that have not been previously registered. For example, if a person finds a W.W.II Luger pistol in their deceased grandfather’s closet and it is not registered, there is no process to allow the legal possession of that firearm. This confronts the finder of the firearm with only two choices, destroy the firearm or keep the firearm illegally. As many people will opt for the latter in order to keep a sentimental heirloom, a third option should exist to permit legal possession. The question must be asked, do you (as the government) want to know where these guns are or not? If so, an amnesty should be provided in order to allow for the legal registration and possession of these firearms to qualified individuals.
Gun Show regulations should be rescinded and returned to provincial jurisdiction.
They are unnecessary, as these shows have rarely been the scene of criminal activity in Canada.
Magazine restrictions should be removed as they serve no social purpose.
Certain shooting competitions use high capacity magazines and Canadian competitors suffer disadvantages by being unable to use these magazines.
That the status of all muzzleloading and blackpowder firearms should be changed to the ‘antique’ definition.
Around the world these firearms are recognized as non-guns and Canadian legislation should reflect this position. Muzzleloading firearms are virtually never used in criminal activity and criminal law should not be applied to them.
Cross border licensing fees should be eliminated.
The Firearms Act has had a very detrimental effect on firearms-related recreational activities, resulting in hardship to many guides, outfitters and others. Tourism is very valuable to Canada and these barriers to a six billion dollar industry should be removed. Legitimate cross border movement of firearms has never been a problem and there is no reason to assume it will become one in the future.
In conclusion, C-10’s parent bill, C-68, was ill-conceived as a public safety solution, has been very poorly implemented and is proving to be extremely wasteful of our country’s scarce resources, resources that are vital to Canada’s security in light of the September 11 catastrophe.
Canadians deserve better public policy from their elected and appointed officials. We hope that this is the beginning of opportunities to move forward, with positive and meaningful changes.
Our organizations will welcome the opportunity to work with government to create a gun control policy that is fair and effective for all Canadians. We look forward to your leadership.
Canadian Shooting Sports Association
3 Director Court, Unit #104, Vaughan, ON, L4L 4S5
Phone 905-265-0692
Fax 905-265-9794
Toll Free: 1-888-873-4339
E-Mail: info@cdnshootingsports.org
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/montrealrecomendations.html
Position Paper on Bill C-68, the Firearms Act
Following are the most contentious issues regarding Bill C-68, the Firearms Act (Chapter 39, the Criminal Code of Canada) for the Recreational Firearms Community (RFC), and recommended changes we would support.
That the mandatory registration of firearms should be suspended.
Firearms registration has never proven a valuable tool in fighting crime and is strongly viewed by the RFC as a prelude to confiscation of private property. Maintaining accurate up-to-date information with such a system is impossible, and without absolutely accuracy, the data becomes meaningless and unreliable. In addition to its ineffectiveness, it is costly, intrusive and impossible to enforce. Suspending the registration of non-restricted firearms would allow the government to revisit this policy in light of the problems with the current system.
The great majority of the RFC does not support any firearms registry system, and many have chosen not to comply, far more than the government is willing to admit.
That section 117 of the Firearms Act to be removed or amended.
Legislation by Order in Council is seen as undemocratic by the RFC, without the parliamentary scrutiny of any new laws and regulations which will no doubt be implemented in the future. Abuses have already been apparent through the use of this section (e.g.. arbitrary firearms prohibitions).
That a License Amnesty should be granted.
It is taking a considerable amount of time for the CFC to process license applications, both new and renewals. As a result, many thousands of firearms owners find themselves technically in possession of their firearms illegally. Many firearms owners have applied for and not received their licenses due to the system backlog causing anxiety about potential criminal charges, particularly among the hunting community at this time of year.
Also, there are many hundreds of thousands of legitimate firearms owners who have not applied for a license and are now afraid of possible criminal prosecution. Many of these people were simply unaware of their legal obligations due to language and/or literacy problems, or lack of contact with mainstream information sources. The RFC feels the communications campaign was inadequate in its coverage.
To facilitate compliance, we recommend the Possession Only License be reinstated for a reasonable period of time, and every attempt be made to inform firearms owners across Canada. The RFC could assist in this endeavour, including clubs and dealers.
That Firearms Licenses should be lifetime in duration.
The "continuous eligibility" process built into the new system will immediately indentify any public safety risk factors on an ongoing basis, thereby eliminating the necessity of 5 year renewals. The rationale to renew anything more than the photograph merely extends the legislation's complexity and cost while inadvertently placing law-abiding citizens at risk of criminal charges.
That paperwork infractions (legislative and regulatory) should be decriminalized.
Currently, all paperwork infractions are criminal code violations. These should be downgraded to firearms act violations which do not carry criminal penalties, only fines, such as with the highway traffic act. This should also include Safe Storage, Display and Transportation and possession of an unregistered firearm by a licensed individual.
That the ‘use it or lose it’ section of the Act be eliminated.
Section 67(2) – This section is what we refer to as the ‘use it or lose it’ clause. It gives the power to the Chief Firearms Officer to refuse a license renewal for restricted firearms or prohibited handguns if, in their opinion, the firearms are not being used for the purpose the firearms were originally registered for. The revised section loosens the definition to any purpose described in section 28 of the Act. It is our recommendation that this entire section be removed from the act. The intent of the section is to force legal firearms owners to dispose of their personal property if, for whatever reason, they are no longer active in target shooting or collecting. How these activities are defined is still not decided and this section flies in the face of the rights of Canadians to own property. It gives unfettered power to a bureaucrat to determine if and what property a Canadian may own.
That the licensing and registration fees should be reduced and/or eliminated.
If the transfer is accomplished on line or by phone, we recommend the fee be eliminated with only a nominal fee instituted if the mail or fax is used. Using a Web site for registration, transfers and license renewals would reduce costs considerably. The "users" of the system are the Canadian general public, not merely firearms owners, and the fee structure should be supported by public funding.
That the Air Gun definitions be redefined.
Section 84 (3) (d) - The Air gun definition amendments were included to further define at what point an air gun becomes a firearm. This controversy began with the introduction and use of lightweight pellets which exceeded the previous 500 fps standard. Despite the fact that these lightweight pellets posed no more of a safety hazard than standard weight pellets, the increase in velocity caused a change in classification for these air guns. Unfortunately, what is contained in C-10a is a confusing solution that not only fails to clarify the issue but further compounds the problem. The Bill proposed to change the definition to an either/or standard of 500 fps or 5.7 joules of energy (4.2 ft/lbs). The stated interpretation of the Justice Ministry is that any air gun that ‘falls below’ either standard is not defined as a firearm for the purposes of the Act. However, the wording is so confusing that our lawyers have taken the interpretation that any air gun which ‘exceeds either standard is a firearm. The wording must be clarified to remove any questions about the intent of the provision. A significant percentage of the air guns in Canada are .22 calibre as opposed to the standard .177 calibre. The use of lightweight .22 pellets causes these air guns to exceed both proposed standards, in effect, re-creating the original problem.
Further, the new air gun provisions do not simplify the problem and in fact, makes the process worse by introducing an unrealistic energy standard to the equation. A simple change to the current British standard of 6 ft/lbs of energy for pistols and 12 ft/lbs of energy for rifles would solve the problem easily, for all calibre air guns. Most Olympic target air rifles (costing upwards of $1500) exceed the existing velocity standards creating problems for national and international athletes attending sporting events as well as hindering the development of Canada’s future Olympic potential. Adopting the British standard would go a long way to simplifying the process and reduce unintended complications.
That "alternate safety certification" should be implemented.
This change recognizes the reality that many Canadians have possessed and used firearms safely for many years, and credit for that experience must be reflected in any "alternate certification" schemes.
In addition, many firearms owners have received other excellent safety training courses in the form of Hunter Safety Training or military/police service and "alternate certification" must also recognize this higher level of safety education.
That "Authorizations to Transport" (ATT) for restricted and prohibited firearms should be included as a part of a firearms license.
Such firearms may only be discharged on an approved shooting range and if a person is authorized to "possess, acquire and use" restricted and prohibited firearms, then the transport permit becomes a redundancy. As well, the "continuous eligibility qualification" system is capable of responding to changes in that person's status further rendering the ATT as a waste of resources. This system should also provide authorization to transport on a Canada wide basis, eliminating the unnecessary step of separate ATTs being issued for crossing provincial borders.
That the discretionary powers granted to Firearms Officers should be replaced by criteria governing the issuance and revocation of licenses.
Reverse onus provisions must be rescinded, again, respecting the spirit and principles of the Canadian Legal System.
That arbitrary inspection and search and seizure powers by law enforcement officers should be eliminated as currently defined.
These powers are intrusive, unconstitutional and open to abuse and should be redrafted to establish limits. For example, the Act calls for mandatory inspections of anyone who owns 10 or more firearms which appears arbitrary.
That Sections 12(5) and 12(6) provisions (firearm prohibitions) be removed.
These sections apply to already legally owned firearms. Since these firearms are rarely involved in criminal activity and owners are subjected to scrutiny under the "continuous eligibility qualification" system, these sections provide no purpose other than harassment of the law abiding RFC. The status of these firearms should be returned to pre C-17 levels.
Section 12(6) – This is a very controversial section and one that is particularly resented by our membership. The handguns which were moved to prohibited status by this section comprises 58% of the legally registered handguns in the registry. They have been owned and used by Canadians for decades and there is no evidence that these legally possessed firearms are any more likely to be used in criminal acts. The delayed confiscation of registered firearms also reinforces the belief that the only purpose of a rifle and shotgun registry is for the eventual confiscation of these firearms. This has severely impacted on the rate of compliance to the long gun registration requirements.
There is also the question of compensation and reinstatement of ‘grandfathered’ status to owners of prohibited 12(6) handguns that bowed to the intimidating and threatening letters sent to them by the RCMP. Thousands of firearms owners turned in their legally owned and registered property for destruction under threat of arrest and prosecution. They should be compensated for their loss and a process developed which will allow them to reenter the ‘grandfathered’ class.
Another serious situation has developed in regards to unregistered prohibited handguns (and in fact, this situation affects all unregistered prohibited firearms) in that there is currently no provision to allow for the registration of prohibited firearms that have not been previously registered. For example, if a person finds a W.W.II Luger pistol in their deceased grandfather’s closet and it is not registered, there is no process to allow the legal possession of that firearm. This confronts the finder of the firearm with only two choices, destroy the firearm or keep the firearm illegally. As many people will opt for the latter in order to keep a sentimental heirloom, a third option should exist to permit legal possession. The question must be asked, do you (as the government) want to know where these guns are or not? If so, an amnesty should be provided in order to allow for the legal registration and possession of these firearms to qualified individuals.
Gun Show regulations should be rescinded and returned to provincial jurisdiction.
They are unnecessary, as these shows have rarely been the scene of criminal activity in Canada.
Magazine restrictions should be removed as they serve no social purpose.
Certain shooting competitions use high capacity magazines and Canadian competitors suffer disadvantages by being unable to use these magazines.
That the status of all muzzleloading and blackpowder firearms should be changed to the ‘antique’ definition.
Around the world these firearms are recognized as non-guns and Canadian legislation should reflect this position. Muzzleloading firearms are virtually never used in criminal activity and criminal law should not be applied to them.
Cross border licensing fees should be eliminated.
The Firearms Act has had a very detrimental effect on firearms-related recreational activities, resulting in hardship to many guides, outfitters and others. Tourism is very valuable to Canada and these barriers to a six billion dollar industry should be removed. Legitimate cross border movement of firearms has never been a problem and there is no reason to assume it will become one in the future.
In conclusion, C-10’s parent bill, C-68, was ill-conceived as a public safety solution, has been very poorly implemented and is proving to be extremely wasteful of our country’s scarce resources, resources that are vital to Canada’s security in light of the September 11 catastrophe.
Canadians deserve better public policy from their elected and appointed officials. We hope that this is the beginning of opportunities to move forward, with positive and meaningful changes.
Our organizations will welcome the opportunity to work with government to create a gun control policy that is fair and effective for all Canadians. We look forward to your leadership.
Canadian Shooting Sports Association
3 Director Court, Unit #104, Vaughan, ON, L4L 4S5
Phone 905-265-0692
Fax 905-265-9794
Toll Free: 1-888-873-4339
E-Mail: info@cdnshootingsports.org
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/montrealrecomendations.html
