Ask AI: Libertarian Critique of Canada’s Anti-Gun Laws

Claude 3 Opus AI Responds

Here is a 500-word critique of Canada’s legislative and regulatory system for individual firearm ownership from a libertarian perspective:

Infringement on Liberty and Rights

Canada’s current laws and regulations around individual firearm ownership represent a significant infringement on personal liberty and property rights.

• The libertarian perspective holds that peaceful individuals have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes like self-defence, hunting, and sport shooting.
• However, Canada’s firearm laws place onerous restrictions and requirements on [law-abiding lawful] gun owners.

Violations of Privacy

To legally own a firearm in Canada, individuals must obtain a licence after completing a safety-training course and passing a background check.

• The licensing process is invasive, requiring the disclosure of personal information and character references.
• Even after obtaining a licence, gun owners face strict limits on the types of firearms they can own, with many common models arbitrarily classified as “Restricted” or “Prohibited.”

Bad Governance

Handguns in particular are tightly controlled, requiring a special “Restricted” licence to own and transport.

• The government recently imposed a “freeze” on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns, a de facto ban.
• This was done by regulatory fiat, without a democratic vote in Parliament.
• Such executive actions circumventing the legislative process are an affront to accountable, representative government.

Capricious and Irrational Rules

Canada’s gun laws are rife with capricious rules lacking any rational basis.

• Firearms are illogically classified by appearance rather than function.
• Rifles with certain cosmetic features are prohibited while functionally identical models remain legal.
• Magazine capacity is arbitrarily capped at 5 rounds for [many] rifles and 10 for handguns.
• None of these restrictions are evidence-based or have any demonstrable impact on public safety.

Burdensome and Nonsensical Legal Minefield

The Authorization To Transport (ATT) rules for “Restricted” firearms are especially burdensome and nonsensical.

• “Restricted” guns like handguns can only be transported to a shooting range with a permit designating a specific route. [Note: The regulation says: ”a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct.”]
• Deviating from that route for any reason is a serious criminal offense.
• This creates a legal minefield for responsible gun owners.

Abuse and Waste

Gun ownership is also a privacy issue.

• The government maintains a registry linking every firearm to its owner.
• Centralized databases of [law-abiding lawful] citizens exercising a right is anathema to a free society and ripe for abuse.
• [Most] long-gun registration was scrapped in 2012 after the database was wastefully mismanaged, but it still exists for “Restricted” [and “Prohibited”] guns. [Note: Politicians used Bill C-71 (2019) to re-introduce a form of registration to track owners of “Non-Restricted” guns.]

Control, Distrust, Presumption of Guilt

Fundamentally, gun control is about control, not safety.

• It is predicated on a paternalistic distrust of citizens and a presumption of guilt over innocence.
• Lawful firearm owners are not the problem — the vast majority of gun crime is committed by unlicensed individuals with illegally obtained weapons.
• Heaping more laws and regulations on the [law-abiding lawful] will not stop determined criminals.

Conclusion

Canada’s firearm laws are incompatible with the libertarian values of individual rights, limited government, and personal responsibility.

• They are an illegitimate intrusion on the liberties of peaceful citizens.
• Responsible Canadians ought to be free to own firearms for legitimate purposes without the government’s permission or oversight.
• Public safety is better served by rigorously prosecuting violent criminals than harassing honest citizens with red tape and arbitrary restrictions.

A freer and more just approach to firearm regulation is needed.