|
Edited on Fri Nov-06-09 01:46 AM by CanuckAmok
Howdy DU.
I have been reading this thread with great interest, because the gun laws here are really changing.
But first, a little background on Canadians and guns...
There is nothing specific in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects its citizens' rights to possess firearms. In fact, it is not a right at all, according to most lawmakers and constitutional experts. However, there are many Canadians who believe that gun ownership is actually a right provided by the British North America Act, which preceded the Charter (but that's a whole other story...). Canada's present laws pertaining to firearms actually cover all manner of weapons. For example, possessing a switchblade knife of nunchaku is actually a violation of the same law governing prohibited firearms, and carries (in theory) the same sentence.
Many weapons readily available in the US (and elsewhere) are strictly prohibited here. The aforementioned switchblade and nunchucks, plus things like throwing stars, replica guns, mace/pepper spray, and a list as long as my arm. And, nobody can buy ammunition without presenting a valid gun license.
In order to own any kind of gun in Canada, you must have the appropriate level of license, and in order to obtain these licenses (even the most basic one), you must attend safety courses, write tests, submit to a criminal record search, etc.
Here is something which many Americans simply do not understand: it is generally understood in Canada that gun ownership is for sport, hunting, collecting, AND NOTHING ELSE. If, for example, you were to list "self-defence" as a reason for gun ownership when writing your license application test, you will receive an automatic fail. Why? Because the government (and arguably Canadian society as a whole) wants to discourage the "siege mentality" which is so apparent in the US (sorry if that offends). The nature of our gun laws is to protect sport-shooting, hunting (particularly when it is culturally important as in the case of the Aboriginal population), and so-forth. The belief, right or wrong, is that the armed defence of the citizenry is the responsibility of the police, not the citizenry. Obviously, it's a hot topic. and it should be mentioned that most firearms instructors specifically coach people not to say "self-defence" on their tests - it is generally accepted that many Canadians who do buy guns are buying them for self-defence... they just can't admit it.
Firearms are legal, but fall into three categories: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. One needs a license for each kind. The gun registry which is now being hopefully dismantled required that every firearm in the country be registered. Removing the registry will mean that only "non-restricted" firearms and "restricted" firearms over an certain length will be exempt from registry. Handsguns and easily concealable long-guns will still require registration.
A little background into each category (very generally as there are exceptions to each category which don't warrant discussion here):
non-restricted is bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, and most rimfire (.22) rifles. There is no restriction on magazine size for these guns.
restricted is centre-fire semi-automatic rifles, semi-auto shotguns, and many individual weapons which fall within minimum barrel length. All handguns, without exception, are considered restricted in Canada. Most of what people define as "assault weapons" here are "restricted". The ARs, the AKs, etc.
Note that since 1991, limitations have been added to the restricted category which make it unlawful to own or use magazines of more than 5 rounds with any semi-automatic centre-fire rifle, or more than 10 rounds in any pistol. As far as I can remember, it is illegal to own any rifle with a functional bayonet or bayonet mount.
prohibited: full-auto anything, specific models which have proven to be easily converted to full-auto, specific models evaluated on a case by case basis, apparently at the whilm of the agency evaluating them, and some other obscure firearms.
All of the long-guns listed above must have a minimum length. They cannot be modified with bullpups, folding stocks, etc, with a few exceptions and with the exception of a few models which come factory-equipped as such (why? ask the bureaucrats, eh!)
In the mid 90s, hot on the heels of your own AWB, the Canadian government adopted a similar type of ban on "assault weapons". And, once again, it was ased on appearance, not function. Curiously, however, ours makes even less sense than yours. Some brands of AR-15, for example, are now prohibited, while other identical brands are not. I can buy a Chinese-made AK-47, but not a Czech-made one. And, even more strange, I can buy a Tavor semi-automatic 5.56 bullpup rifle with a very short barrel and integrated bipod, which the US government prohibits in all 50 states. Go figure!
The prohibition of semi-auto firearms is done on a model-by-model basis. There seems to be no constant in how it's done. The entire H&K semi-auto long-gun range, for example is completely prohibited here, but I can buy a Brazilian copy of an H&K semi-auto G3 - which is identical in every way - as a regular restricted firearm. Why? Nobody knows. Some people suggest it actually boils down to the origin of the weapon and where else in the world it is used - since the G3 is a military rifle still used by many armies worldwide, it should be prohibited. THe Brazilian copy was always made as a sporting rifle - even though it's completely identical - so it's acceptable. I never claimed it made any sense.
The handling of firearms is heavily restricted. For example, while anyone who possess a restricted license can buy a handgun, that handgun can only be used at a recognized range. It must be locked and unloaded when not in use. If the owner opts to keep the pistol in his home when not using it at the range, it must be transported in the trunk of his vehicle, out of sight, in a locked case, and on a route which is a logical path between range and home. So if you have your handgun in your car on the way home from the range but you decide to take a 50 mile detour to go to the mall or something, you're technically breaking the law. Nobody, with the exception of peace officers, and the rumoured exception of some high-profile judges and politicians, is permitted concealed or open carry permits for handguns here.
There is no NRA here (thank god). Wed do have the National Firearms Association, which is more a body of instruction and networking than a lobbyist platform. Obviously the NFA advocates for fair gun laws, but it is generally not filled with the kinds of extremists I have met at NRA functions. Not that we don't have them here - it's just that they are fairly marginalized.
The dismantling of the registry will not affect the laws which have been on the books since 1969, in which all restricted and prohibited firearms must be registered. It should be noted, too, that several Members of Parliament supporting the dismantling of the gun registry are NDP party members. The NDP is the most left-leaning of the mainstream parties here (and my party of choice).
Now armed - so to speak - with that background, I would like to give you my opinions as a Canadian gun owner.
I do not like the gun registry, and I never have. I echo what other people here have stated; a registry serves no purpose but to monitor the law-abiding. Criminals don't register their guns.
I do like the magazine restrictions. I can take my Remington R-25 or my Ruger Mini-14 out to the woods with ten 5-round magazines, but not with two 25-round mags. It is slightly more inconvenient, but it also means that if someone was to take the same rifle to a clock-tower to shoot people with, his rate of fire would be significantly diminished. This is the kind of inconvenience I can live with. And as a precision shooter, I'm of the mind that if I can't hit a target within five shots, I should take up macrame instead.
I don't like restrictions on weapons based on their appearance, and I don't like your AWB (or our copy of your AWB). As the Virginia Tech shooter tragically illustrated, a horrible body count can be achieved with a pair of regular old handguns just as easily (if not more so) than with an "assault rifle". And I know shooters who can squeeze off five accurate rounds with a bolt action rifle in about the same time it takes me to empty a 5-round magazine with a semi-auto. Although it is a tired old cliche, in this sense it really is true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
I do like background checks, waiting periods, and mandatory instruction. For the life of me I will never understand why the NRA, with all its supposed emphasis on safety and education, doesn't support these kind of measures.
I do not like the odd elements of background screenings. For example, if you are divorced here, you cannot get a gun licence within five years of the end of your marriage. It is presumed that you're buying the gun so you can kill your former spouse. While that's not an argument without some merit, I imagine the percentage of people who would actually do so is negligible compared to the number of law-abiding people who suffer as a result of this (and other kinds of) restriction. It should also be noted that if you were a former spouse concerned about a potentially violent spouse, you couldn't buy a gun to defend yourself, either.
I do like the fact that it's not as easy to buy a gun here as it is to buy a coffee maker. It is logically obvious that the fewer guns in circulation, the fewer will end up in the hands of the criminals.
I do like the fact that it's nearly impossible to buy a handgun here, and that they are so carefully controlled. The way I see it, I'm not carrying one, but I can be 99.99% sure that the scary looking meth-head loitering near my parked car - or my angry and insane ex-girlfriend - doesn't have one, either. IMO, the proliferation of handguns, not "assault weapons" is the real gun problem in the US. Yes, you have school and work shootings which are undertaken by rifle-toting killers, but as someone else pointed out, a rifle isn't really ideal for that kind of killing spree. And, I don't know what the odds are of being mowed-down by a gun-toting disgruntled maniac with a rifle are, but I imagine they're up there with being crushed by a falling communications satellite. I would suspect that as far as being shot goes, you're more liekly to be shot in the middle of a botched robbery with a concealed handgun than with an armed-to-the-teeth mailman.
Aside: I own a Ruger Mini-14, which is coincidentally the same kind of rifle Marc Lepin used when he killed 14 women in a Montreal school 20 years ago... and it's not a prohibited weapon here. In fact, the restrictions on the Mini-14 are incredibly lax. I don't understand the logic.
I do like gun owners who take responsibility for the awesome right (privilege, here) of gun ownership. Although this is unpopular in many gun-ownership circles, I believe the gun owner has a responsibility to secure his guns at all times. When I am not using them, mine are locked-up in a safe which is bolted to my floor. I never leave them unattended, ever, unless they are in that safe. Not in the car, not under my pillow. Never. And I always use trigger locks. I think everybody should do what I do. I'm that kind of guy.
My argument has always been that if someone breaks into your house and your guns aren't secured, if they end up in the hands of the thief, it's your fault. The absolutists always argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes of others, and I agree to a point, but that said, we all lock our houses and take the keys out of our cars, right? Why? To deter (not prevent) crime.
I have a friend who is a lifetime NRA member, and a bit of a RWNJ. He doesn't use trigger locks because "they are easy to pick". I just don't get that. Piking a lock is still more difficult and time-consuming than not having to pick it. It's like saying "I don't bother locking my door because a burglar could just smash it open with a sledgehammer". I think it's your responsibility as a property owner to secure your property to the best of your ability with whatever tools are available to you. Is that so crazy?
Anyway... I digress.
The bottom line is that I sometimes envy the "liberal" gun laws in the US, but at the same time I think I'm lucky to live in a society in which gun laws make ownership an earned privilege.
edit: if anyone cares to do the research, you'll be entertained by what an ineffective, administrative nightmare cluster the registry has been since day one. And it cost, like, a billion dollars or something.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Similar looking to the AK but with no parts interchange, which means I can have one. And since the barrel is longer than 18.5" I can shoot it outside of the range. Bow to your superior Czech rifle overlords!
