Column: Gun resolution backfires on Liberals
Date: Feb 13, 2007 10:20 AM
PUBLICATION: Times & Transcript (Moncton)
DATE: 2007.02.13
SECTION: Sports
PAGE: B6
BYLINE: Everett MosherOutdoor life
WORD COUNT: 793

————————————————————————
——–

Gun resolution backfires on Liberals

————————————————————————
——–

In recent months nothing has attracted so much attention from firearm
owners and the hunting community as Resolution 42, which was voted on
and accepted by the Liberal Party of Canada at their leadership and
biennial convention in Montreal in November, 2006. This resolution
lumped both fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms together and
called for an outright ban of their ownership by individuals.

In passing this resolution it appears that those that did so were
completely ignorant of the fact that semi-auto firearms in the form of
.22 rimfire rifles, shotguns and centerfire rifles have been and
currently are in common use by hunters and target shooters in Canada,
with a best guess placing as much as one- half to three-quarters of all
Canadian firearm owners as owning one of more rifles or shotguns with a
semi-auto action.

Since this resolution was based on false information, the Liberal party
has done an about face.

If the parties website is researched for the most recent listing under
“final resolutions,” we find this statement: “Policy Resolution 42
has
been withdrawn due to unintended factual errors and can therefore not
inform party policy.”

Yet, there is more to the story than just this statement. In December,
John Pugh, president of the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation contacted
Andrew Holland, Liberal MP Andy Scott’s executive assistant, and
expressed his concerns and that of the NBWF’s members regarding the
resolution.

In addition, many other organizations all across Canada, including the
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, contacted their members of
parliament and expressed similar opposition. The net result was that in
late January the Liberal caucus withdrew their support of this
resolution.

Out of all this several points of interest have surfaced. One being that
a number of Liberal members of parliament, including Andy Scott, was
opposed to this resolution and said so. Many of these members are strong
supporters of hunting and angling and the private ownership of firearms.

Another point is that firearm owners and hunters must realize that as
individuals their opposition to any anti-firearm or anti-hunting
resolutions or laws has little impact in either Fredericton or Ottawa,
but, as a member of a large organization such as the above mentioned
two, when they speak, the politicians pay attention.

Yet, as a result of Resolution 42 being passed in the first place most
firearms owners are left with the impression that the long-term goal of
the Liberal party in Ottawa must be the eventual complete elimination of
the private ownership of firearms. This is still their impression,
despite the withdrawing of this resolution by the Liberal caucus.

To many a firearm owner the Liberal party policy appears to be following
that of “a nibble at a time and soon all is gone” as applied to mice
eating a cheese. This perceived policy by the Liberal Party of nibbling
away at the private ownership of firearms was also indicated when the
then Prime Minister Paul Martin, in the closing days of the last
election campaign calling for the total elimination of all privately
owned handguns. Then in Nov. 30 of last year resolution 42 appeared,
calling for the total elimination of the private ownership of all
semi-automatic firearms, only they referred to them as weapons, instead
of firearms.

The point should be made that a firearm is just a firearm, an inert
object and should not be termed a weapon, until or unless it is used
with the intent to harm or kill others. A baseball bat, a golf club, or
even a pillow can also be referred to as a weapon, but only when used to
harm or kill. One dictionary also lists hammers, horns and claws as
potential weapons. (Since a bear has four sets of claws, with all four
often used as the same time as weapons, this raises all sorts of
questions such as classification, (fully auto?) licensing, registration,
etc. and will we need to register our cat at some future date?)

If the stance of the federal Liberal party is other than what most
firearms owners now believe, and that the party in fact supports the
private ownership of firearms and will do so in the future, then this
must be made very clear and quickly, too. What is very much needed is a
clear public statement of their policy in regards to firearms and also
in regards to hunting and fishing in Canada.

They may currently have such a policy, but if they have, they are
keeping it very much to themselves, with the exception of course of past
policies that have surfaced in the forms of Bill C68 and Resolution 42!

-Everett Mosher is a Sackville-based writer and avid outdoorsman. His
column appears every Tuesday.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !