Editorial: Gun ruling shot full of holes
Date: Mar 16, 2005 9:16 AM
PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal
DATE: 2005.03.16
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Opinion
PAGE: A18
SOURCE: The Edmonton Journal
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Journal Stock / (Brenda) Pogson

——————————————————————————–

Gun ruling shot full of holes

——————————————————————————–

For those left confused by a provincial court decision last year that granted a
gun licence to an Alberta woman against the recommendation of a firearms officer
and local police who knew her, this week’s higher court review offers some much-needed
clarity.

It appears we are living in Canada in the 21st century after all. Gun ownership
is not an inalienable right, violent crime is not rampant and average people do
not need to arm themselves in self-defence.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Frans Slatter made those facts quite clear in his
decision in the case of Brenda Pogson, an Alberta woman denied a firearms licence
in 2001.

Pogson initially appealed her case to a provincial court judge who granted her a
licence, and, in a memorable ruling, said average people sometimes need guns to
defend themselves against “homicidal rapists or robbers”.

That, despite evidence Pogson had serious problems with alcohol, drugs and depression
as well as a conviction for assault. The RCMP constable she offered as a reference
said she shouldn’t be given a gun licence. Another RCMP officer who knew her said
he couldn’t recall a single day in the summer of 2000 when she was sober. He said
she had been known to “intimidate the elderly to obtain their prescription
drugs,” and had shown “violent tendencies towards smaller individuals.”

St. Paul provincial court Judge Don Demetrick ruled the opinion of police wasn’t
relevant. He discounted Pogson’s assault conviction. And he reversed the onus of
proof from Pogson to the firearms officer who had denied her application. These
were among nine errors in law identified by Justice Slatter, who heard an appeal
of the decision from the chief firearms officer of Alberta.

Perhaps the most egregious finding of the lower-court decision was the determination
that owning a firearm is a right in Canada, not a privilege. Thankfully, that issue
was handily addressed by Justice Slatter, who made it clear “the ownership
of firearms is now a privilege and not a right” because of the licensing regimen
established by Parliament.

“It is not the function of a provincial court judge hearing a reference to
fight some sort of rearguard action against gun control, on the theory the courts
are better able than Parliament to balance the competing policy objectives,”
he wrote.

Justice Slatter allowed the appeal, set aside the decision and referred the matter
back to a different provincial court judge.

“Given the numerous errors in his decision, it is impossible to say what decision
the learned provincial court judge would have made if he had applied the correct
test.”

Hopefully, common sense can now prevail in this case. Surely it is reasonable to
consider an applicant’s past violence, alcohol abuse, drug problems and mental health
when considering whether or not to allow him or her to own a firearm. And surely,
most Canadians would prefer police, firearms officers and the courts to err on the
side of caution in such potentially volatile situations.