271 Shares
Shares

The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster,” it is clear that the affront on firearm owners, including hand-gun owners, throughout Canada, is nothing but “ill-considered or extreme over-regulation to address ideological or emotional issues. When added elements of political expediency and social correctness ignore or distort reality and practicality in legislation, however, the results can be damaging and counter-productive.”

From my report to the Senate and 2 Conservative MPs…
“(iii) Firearms are Considered a Different Class of Weapon Needing Different Treatment Through the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, Separate From Other Weapons, For the Safety of Canadians.

It would seem that “firearms” are not to be separated from “weapons” as expressed through various Criminal Code Acts of Canada. The creation of the Firearms Act was merely a political move by government. As expressed in a number of documents the requirement of registration is “considered as too intrusive, a tax-grab in its registration and transfer fees, and pointless for any crime-deterrent or public safety purpose.” There were and are also the draconian “provisions of warrantless at-home inspections, search and seizure and compelled self-incrimination” which is completely unconstitutional through, not only the Charter and the Criminal Code but also under the Constitution Act of 1867 (BNA).

The Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Feb. 3, 2019 mimicked the same statements as Alan Rock did during the 1990’s when the government of that day implemented the Firearms Act and included more stringent statements/sections in the Criminal Code of Canada. He stated that this was for “public safety” and that we must reduce the availability of firearms so that they would not fall into the hands of “gangs” or criminals. And what did Alan Rock state during his tenure that it was for “crime control” and “public safety.” In regards to firearms being stolen. This has been covered under the Criminal Code of Canada and an illustration of this was provided for in the 1893 Criminal Code of Canada. It states:

And what did Alan Rock state during his tenure that it was for “crime control” and “public safety.” In regards to firearms being stolen. This has been covered under the Criminal Code of Canada and an illustration of this was provided for in the 1893 Criminal Code of Canada. It states:

“If A, by force take the arm of B, in which is a weapon, and thereby kill C, ” A is guilty of murder, not B; “‘ ( 1 ) for B. in this instance, is as unwittingly the instrument of A, as, if he were inanimate or unconscious; and his own will has nothing at all to do with the act, which is as exclusively the act of A as if the weapon were in the latter’s hand instead of in B’s.

Compulsion by necessity —The law of necessity is paramount over all other laws; and it has been well said that every law of man, common law or statutory law, has in it the implied exception, which is of the same force as if expressed, that obedience shall not be required when it is impossible, and that an act which is unavoidable is no crime. (2) And, as everything which is necessary for a man to do to save his life is treated as compelled, it follows that if I am attacked by a ruffian who seeks my life, I may kill him if I cannot otherwise preserve my own life.”

And yet what was it really? From the paper “A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster,” it is clear that the affront on firearm owners, including hand-gun owners, throughout Canada, is nothing but “ill-considered or extreme over-regulation to address ideological or emotional issues. When added elements of political expediency and social correctness ignore or distort reality and practicality in legislation, however, the results can be damaging and counter-productive.”

And the results were/are damaging and counter-productive. It has also created a bias and discriminatory set of standards through law. In the Nayanookeesic of the Whitesand First Nation case it was decided, by the Court, that due to the cost of the licences and certain treaty rights, Mark and Leon Nayanookeesic did not have to obtain licences nor did they have to take safety courses. “The Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850, which covers the Whitesand territory, contains broad references to hunting rights. Aside from asserting an Aboriginal and treaty right to hunt, without paying licence fees, First Nations people say that taking safety courses that cost about $200 is unnecessary because hunting is part of their traditional way of life.” And yet non-Indigenous Canadians have their own, for want of better wording, treaty with the Sovereign – that being Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, 1688-89.

The question asked – if there are exemptions for some how can any Firearms Act actually be implemented for “safety purposes” when not everyone must subscribe to the same requirements and restrictions? Indigenous members of our society are not exempt from the Criminal Code so how is it that they are exempted from the same “safety’ criteria and/or licencing requirements, as all other Canadians, unless this is merely a tax and/or a political ideology without any evidentiary support??

“Thus the stated motives of “crime control” and “public safety” were invented and transparent fictions, for none fit known facts, statistics, or experience. The several million people and firearms now to be licensed, taxed, registered, regulated, and inspected were never those likely to be involved in “crime” or as threats to “public safety.” They were, in fact, among the least likely.”

In regards to safety – how can any registry and/or even the banning of any firearm be secure in the present age of computerization? It would seem the registry has set the lawful owner of firearms up as victims when it involves who knows where the firearms are located. As expressed in 2006 article by Lorne Gunter, National Post.

“But after months of freedom-of-information requests from Saskatchewan Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz, the Mounties were forced last year to admit they haven’t got up-to-date statistics in this area. Their most recent numbers show 306 illegal breaches of the national police database between 1995 and 2003, 121 of which were unsolved at last report.

The CFC’s reassurances aren’t very reassuring at all. A vast national catalogue of firearms –enough to outfit several dozen street gangs, biker gangs and drug operations — is only as secure as a system that has been hacked an average of nearly 40 times a year; and which in 40% of cases no one is caught.
Since last fall, there have been half a dozen high-profile gun thefts from shops and collectors’ homes in southern Ontario, and unconfirmed reports of nearly 20 more in and around Edmonton.”

Since last fall, there have been half a dozen high-profile gun thefts from shops and collectors’ homes in southern Ontario, and unconfirmed reports of nearly 20 more in and around Edmonton.”

So, it is the registry and government which is a vehicle used by nefarious criminals, including gangs, which is setting the law-abiding firearm owner up for an invasion of their home or business because of a list created under the guise of “public safety.” This merely shows the failure that the gun registry and the Firearms Act has become.

If government is actually serious about “public safety” and in the reduction of crime perhaps they should repeal the Firearms Act and simply do as our thoughtful forefathers had – if you commit any crime with any weapon you must serve your time. And ensure those who use any form of weapon for self-defence are protected from prosecution.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper, albeit not legal advice and merely for informational purposes only, has answered 3 outstanding questions in the minds of Canadians. Those questions being:

(i) The Right to Self and Property Defence
(ii) That the Ownership of Firearms is a Right and Not merely a Privilege
(iii) Firearms are Considered a Different Class of Weapon Needing Different Treatment Through the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, Separate From Other Weapons, For the Safety of Canadians.

Based on historical research, inclusive of evidence provided by means of reference to supportive documentation it would seem the answer to (i) is that it is the right of Canadians to use whatever means necessary, inclusive of weapons, to defend themselves, other persons and their property.

The answer to question (ii) is firearm ownership a Canadian right? It, again, based on historical documentation, inclusive of Constitutional documents, is the right of Canadians to own weapons, including firearms.

So, it is the registry and government which is a vehicle used by nefarious criminals, including gangs, which is setting the law-abiding firearm owner up for an invasion of their home or business because of a list created under the guise of “public safety.” This merely shows the failure that the gun registry and the Firearms Act has become.

And to question (iii) should firearms be treated differently from any other form of weapon and/or should there be different rules for different citizens of Canada under the Firearms Act? The answer would be no. Firearms are included in the definition of “weapons” throughout the Criminal Law and to ensure there is no discrimination amongst Canadians there cannot be 2 sets of firearm rules, particularly if those rules are purportedly set up for the safety of Canadians.

It would seem, Bill C-71 is merely based on political ideology and not founded on evidence or law and could be considered as unconstitutional as the events which led up to the creation of Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights in 1688-89.”

I have the footnotes just there’s a lot of reading in them…

A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster, Donald Webster is a historian and curator emeritus, Canadiana, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and professor emeritus, Art History, University of Toronto. He has written extensively on antique firearms, and published some two hundred articles and seventeen books. A U.S. Air Force armaments instructor in his youth, he is also a life-long skeet and trap shooter, and over decades has trained, accident-free, many hundreds of young people in gun safety and target shooting.

Conclusion, p. 26 of 49.“Registration is widely considered as too intrusive, a tax-grab in its registration and transfer fees, and pointless for any crime-deterrent or public safety purpose. Attendant with registration, the draconian new Section 102-105 provisions for warrantless at-home “inspections,” search-and-seizure, and compelled self-incrimination, are seen as unconstitutional and as abrogations of common-law civil rights and liberties. Professor Ted Morton of the University of Calgary has identified well over a dozen constitutional violations included in the Firearms Act, all of which call strongly for Supreme Court challenges. It would appear that the drafters of the Act devoted little if any attention to existing law and precedent that, collectively, make up Canada‟s constitution.” A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster, Donald Webster is a historian and curator emeritus, Canadiana, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and professor emeritus, Art History, University of Toronto. He has written extensively on antique firearms, and published some two hundred articles and seventeen books. A U.S. Air Force armaments instructor in his youth, he is also a life-long skeet and trap shooter, and over decades has trained, accident-free, many hundreds of young people in gun safety and target shooting.

Conclusion, p. 26 of 49
A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster, Donald Webster is a historian and curator emeritus, Canadiana, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and professor emeritus, Art History, University of Toronto. He has written extensively on antique firearms, and published some two hundred articles and seventeen books. A U.S. Air Force armaments instructor in his youth, he is also a life-long skeet and trap shooter, and over decades has trained, accident-free, many hundreds of young people in gun safety and target shooting. Conclusion, p. 8 of 49.
The Criminal Code of Canada and the Canada Evidence Act, 1893 with an extra Appendix containing … the House of Commons Debates on the Code. James Crankshaw, B.C.L., Barrister, Montreal, 1894, p. 13.

Donald Webster is a historian and curator emeritus, Canadiana, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and professor emeritus, Art History, University of Toronto. He has written extensively on antique firearms, and published some two hundred articles and seventeen books. A U.S. Air Force armaments instructor in his youth, he is also a life-long skeet and trap shooter, and over decades has trained, accident-free, many hundreds of young people in gun safety and target shooting.
A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster, Donald Webster is a historian and curator emeritus, Canadiana, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and professor emeritus, Art History, University of Toronto. He has written extensively on antique firearms, and published some two hundred articles and seventeen books. A U.S. Air Force armaments instructor in his youth, he is also a life-long skeet and trap shooter, and over decades has trained, accident-free, many hundreds of young people in gun safety and target shooting. Conclusion, p. 1.

Federal gun legislation shot down in court.

A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited Donald Blake Webster, Donald Webster is a historian and curator emeritus, Canadiana, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and professor emeritus, Art History, University of Toronto. He has written extensively on antique firearms, and published some two hundred articles and seventeen books. A U.S. Air Force armaments instructor in his youth, he is also a life-long skeet and trap shooter, and over decades has trained, accident-free, many hundreds of young people in gun safety and target shooting. Conclusion, p. 8 of 49.

A one-stop e-shop for gun thieves.

Shares
271 Shares