Column: New government will have to deal with gun legislation
Date: Jan 24, 2006 8:07 AM
PUBLICATION: Times & Transcript (Moncton)
DATE: 2006.01.24
PAGE: B6
SECTION: Everett Mosher
BYLINE:
WORD COUNT: 628

————————————————————————
——–

New government will have to deal with gun legislation

————————————————————————
——–

As this was written yesterday, the outcome of the federal election was
still very much an unknown.

Yet, regardless of that outcome, hunters, target shooters, collectors
and all others that own firearms will be affected in one way or the
other.

Paul Martin has proposed the banning of all privately owned handguns.
Steven Harper has stated that he will do away with Bill C-68.

Yet, almost everyone is well aware that banning handguns will only
affect the law abiding owners of currently registered handguns and will
have no affect on the illegal use of handguns by criminals.

Conversely, there is some doubt that Harper will completely do away with
all aspects of the bill.

Full implementation of this legislation was supposed to cost no more
than $119 million, yet the current cost is over $1.5 billion (that’s
$1,500,000,000) and steadily increasing.

That $1.5 billion has been spent and can never be recovered. Current
yearly costs are projected to be around $100 million, give or take
$10-20 million.

If we look at a cross-section of the Canadian public, we find a small
percentage that would outlaw the private ownership of all firearms, with
their possession limited to the police and the military.

Some of those folks have lost loved ones killed by a firearm, yet there
are also those that have supported this viewpoint for purely political
reasons, or for reasons of personal profit, power, etc.

Then we have the majority of Canadians who do not own a firearm, yet are
concerned that firearms are being used for criminal purposes.

These folks can be swayed either for or against private ownership,
depending on what they read or hear.

For the average firearm owner, the hassle involved in acquiring a
firearm licence and registering their firearms stirred up considerable
resentment towards the Liberal government in Ottawa.

They have also been more than a little upset about what it has cost them
financially and that it has cost all Canadian taxpayers, firearm owner
and non- firearm owner alike, $1.5 billion to date.

Despite the spending of all this money, there is no evidence that it has
reduced the criminal use of firearms one iota.

In the firearms community a significant percentage are very much opposed
to both the licensing of the firearm owner and the registration of
firearms.

Most of these folks are of the firm belief that firearm registration is
but the first step to eventual confiscation. Martin’s proposed ban on
handguns lends credibility to this belief.

Note that in Great Britain the private ownership of all handguns has
been banned. Olympic pistol shooters have to travel to another country
in order to practiae.

In Australia, the ownership of all semi-auto and pump action long guns
has been banned for several years. Yet, in both countries the criminal
use of firearms has risen substantially since then.

It seems very elementary common sense to say we should register and ban
the criminal, not the firearm.

Although the figures are not precise, less than 10 per cent of the
population commits 90 per cent of the crimes.

When a criminal gets out of jail, he or she is very likely to go on
committing more crimes. We currently have a revolving door system with
criminals.

Instead, if we had a “three strikes your out” policy like California
where, if a criminal is convicted of a crime for the third time they are
sent to jail for life, it’s speculated that crimes in this country would
drop by as much as one- half. We should be targeting the criminal
element, not an inanimate object such as a firearm.

The newly elected government should not do away with the licensing of
firearm owners. They do, however, need to start a registry of those who
were refused a firearm licence, information that is not currently kept.
As for the possible discontinuance of the current long gun firearm
registry, we must first ask certain questions.

The public very much wants to know if this registry actually reduces the
criminal use of firearms, and, if so, to what extent; and, does the
benefits justify the costs. Yet, the key question to ask is just how
much Bill C-68 has infringed on the privacy and other rights of firearm
owning Canadians. And that may well be the primary reason why the
legislation should be thrown out, replaced with firearm legislation that
would be common sensed, practical, cost effective and target the
criminals, without infringing on the rights of law- abiding Canadians.

No soap opera can ever compare to what has gone on in political circles
in Ottawa, including having a separatist party in the Canadian
parliament. Thus what goes on in Ottawa the next few months should be
more than a little interesting, especially since it will affect each and
every Canadian