TheGunBlog.ca — Canadians should be concerned by one of the Liberal Party’s first campaign promises if they win the October election: ordering mass gun bans against hunters, farmers, ranchers, sport shooters and gun collectors.
Bill Blair, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minister for confiscation, began his media tour by talking with Canada’s two largest newspapers.
- The Globe and Mail published an interview with him last week.
- The Toronto Star published one yesterday.
(See also Global News today.)
If Blair is sincere in wanting to criminalize many federally licensed firearm owners unless they surrender their guns, it points to a government and a party that are misguided and possibly dangerous.
Mass Gun Bans
- Rifles and Shotguns. The Liberals will order licensed owners to surrender what Blair calls “assault weapons” or “assault-style weapons” in exchange for payment.
- Neither the Globe nor the Star gave specifics on which owners the Liberals are targeting.
- Shooters speculate it could be anyone in lawful possession of so-called “Restricted” or “Non-restricted” firearms such as AR-15, SKS and IWI Tavor and certain KelTec rifles, and various shotguns.
- The new bans would be in addition to the prohibition and eventual confiscation of “Non-restricted” rifles from more than 10,000 families under Bill C-71.
- Handguns. The Liberals want to give provinces and cities more power to criminalize handgun owners and ban their pistols and revolvers, Blair said.
Following are a few of the flaws and risks implied in what the Liberals propose.
- The government says violent criminals and gangs are threatening the lives and/or property of peaceful residents.
- If the government is aware of people who threaten innocent lives, it should neutralize and eliminate the threats today. It is irresponsible and immoral to wait until after the election.
- The government isn’t proposing to stop “bad guys” at all, because it can’t. It’s proposing to crack down on “good guys.”
- Everything the Liberal Party is promising is an election gimmick at the expense of lawful, legitimate hunters, farmers, ranchers, sport shooters and gun collectors with a police-authorized firearm licence.
- The party wants some headlines and a page in its 2019 election platform to show it’s “doing something about guns.”
- That something? Prohibit and confiscate property from honest people.
Liberals may win.
- The election gimmick may help the Liberals win because bans are hugely popular among Liberal voters.
- This points to an ethics concern with the Liberal proposals. If a lot of people are in favour of criminalizing honest people, an ethical government/party might educate them about the importance of respect, rights, freedom and legal principles such as “innocent until proven guilty.” Unethical governments/parties exploit fear and ignorance to win votes.
- Instead of stopping the offenders and keeping honest people safe, the government wants to punish the potential victims.
- The potential victims of the government in this case are deemed safe by the federal police.
Collective guilt and scapegoating.
- The government suggests owning a firearm makes you a potential criminal.
- Instead of recognizing firearm owners as being among the safest and most responsible residents of Canada, it wants to criminalize them.
- If the government goes ahead with plans to undermine the dignity, freedom, justice and rights of firearm owners, affected people have three main options:
- Leave. Escape with your guns to another country as a political refugee.
- Stay and comply.
- Stay and don’t comply, and live as an outlaw and risk prison if you’re caught.
Regulatory system failure.
- The only reason to look for new tools to regulate firearm owners is if the current tools are failing or inadequate.
- Blair is making a fairly serious criticism of the policymakers who designed Canada’s multi-billion dollar licensing and registration system, the party that proposed it, the politicians who voted it into law, the bureaucrats who run it today, or all of the above.
- The dirty secret of Canada’s program to regulate firearm owners is that it is a costly public-safety failure, financially, humanly and morally.
- Most of it offers little benefit to safety, as people have said from the day it was proposed in the early 1990s.
- It is upside-down, inside-out and backwards, focused on hyper-regulating the known “good guys” with paperwork under constant threat of prison, and leaving the known “bad guys” alone.
- In reality, we could scrap the whole thing, pay the people who run it to stay home, and nobody would notice. Canada would become like Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont.
The emperor is naked and dangerous.
- The above forces at least two conclusions about the government and the governing party:
- Naked: They are powerless to stop real threats, the violent individuals and gangs who are destroying lives, families and communities. They have abandoned hope of trying. They aren’t even pretending to try.
- The government of Canada is unable to ensure the safety of citizens and residents.
- The governing party will scapegoat and criminalize innocent people to achieve political victory.
- This fuels distrust in politicians and political institutions.
The most important part of gun rights isn’t “gun,” it’s “rights.”