PUBLICATION:
The
StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
DATE:
2004.01.15
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Forum
PAGE:
A13
BYLINE:
Edward B. Hudson
SOURCE:
Special to The StarPhoenix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents
of gun law won't surrender rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following
is the personal viewpoint of the writer, a Saskatoon veterinarian and secretary
of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association.
In
praise of the federal government's new Firearms Act, Prof. Tim Quigley (Facts
show new firearms program worthwhile, SP Jan. 8) states that "calls to
scrap the system are irrational."
Quigley
supports his position by providing data from the United States, while at the
same time attempting to refute a U.S. study that shows the benefit of firearms
ownership.
Interestingly,
Quigley does not mention a recently published study by a fellow Canadian, Gary
Mauser of Simon Fraser University, entitled "The Failed Experiment, Gun
Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England, and Wales."
In
this comparative study of the new Canadian firearms control system and the
effect upon the rates of violent crime, Mauser unequivocally concludes:
"Restrictive firearms legislation has failed to reduce violent crime in
Australia, Canada, and Great Britain. ... It is an illusion that gun bans
protect the public."
While
all responsible citizens understand the need for public safety, that needs to be
balanced by seeking only laws which truly are effective. Equally importantly,
any new government control measure must not violate a citizen's constitutional
guarantee of personal freedom.
Not
only is Canada's new Firearms Act demonstrably ineffective and outrageously
expensive, it violates several liberties guaranteed to all Canadians under the
Charter. Specifically, the act contravenes our rights to privacy, security of
person, presumption of innocence, association, representation, mobility, and
freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Although
critics such as Quigley might counter that the Charter allows for
"reasonable limits" upon these liberties, the Charter also says such
limits on freedoms must be "demonstrably justified."
For
more than a year I, and members of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners
Association, have been engaged in a struggle to protect our constitutionally
guaranteed rights. In an attempt to challenge this unjust law in court we have
on more than 30 occasions peacefully demonstrated that we own firearms in
direct, open contravention of the Firearms Act.
We
are confident that the courts will declare this law both unreasonable and
unjustified. Inexplicably the federal government has refused to charge us under
its law.
If,
as Quigley claims, the Firearms Act were effective and cost efficient, why does
Ottawa refuse to charge us and thus prevent a Charter challenge from proceeding?
More specifically, if the Firearms Act were
so effective in promoting public safety, why do police allow me to continue to
own more than 50 unregistered firearms right here in Saskatoon without
"benefit" of a firearms license? If this law were truly necessary, the
police should immediately confiscate my firearms and I should be in jail.
Our
challenge to the federal government is peaceful and direct: We have openly
transgressed the law. Charge us. The onus is on the government to prove in court
that this law is just, reasonable, efficient, and effective.
We
will never surrender our inalienable rights to an unreasonable government.