Source: Thetruthaboutguns
The current session of the Canadian Parliament is currently debating legislation aiming to eliminate the long-gun registry system that has been maintained for many years, a move sponsored largely by the conservative party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Since the conservatives mustered a majority government on May 3, 2011, initiatives to remove the registry and cater to the gun lobby have been anticipated. Some Canadians feel this is simply another step toward fulfilling more sweeping, long-term Conservative Party goals, culminating in an effort to “kill the current gun licensing scheme altogether.” The registry has long acted as a beneficial data-gathering instrument for legislative reform and regulatory analysis, in the pursuit of the restraint of private control of weapons. Authorities who have relied on this information to prevent gun violence throughout the country are concerned over the effects resulting from the elimination of such regulation on law enforcement and the safety and security of Canadians. In essence, the government has moved to eliminate a measure that has, for a lengthy period of time, protected its people from unnecessary gun violence.
The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) Union has spoken fervently against closing down the registry. CAW President Ken Lewenza insists that its proposed dissolution “is more a show of political opportunism than common sense.” Women’s Programs Director of the CAW, Julie White, has spoken out in concurrence with Lawenza, illustrating that the initiative to save the registry is reflective of “principles of public safety and…a culture of responsible gun ownership.” Others argue that gun regulation should not be weakened because of the resulting inevitable spurs of violence that will further trouble Canadian society. On the anniversary of lethal shootings that had occurred at their school in September of 2006, a group of students from Dawson College requested a discussion with the Prime Minister to consider the costs and benefits of eliminating the registry, but failed to elicit any formative response from Harper’s office. The students’ initiative, however, reveals a stark division in public policy, and the presence of a strong, emotionally charged, level of public opposition to a restrictive society within the Canadian electorate.
The registry’s deconstruction is motivated by an array of objectives. Many see the system as being needlessly officious and unnecessary: most long-range weapons listed in the registry are used for hunting and sporting activities, with such limitations often needlessly inundating hapless citizens with any number of difficulties, along with logistical problems. Candice Hoeppner, a prominent anti-registry Member of Parliament, has advocated for the removal of the registry from the inception of the initiative, insisting that her constituents “are good, salt-of-the-earth people and for so long they have had really nobody in government who has been able to make any changes on their behalf.” A report issued by Dr. Caillin Langmann of McMaster University in support of Conservatives’ efforts to do away with a superfluous reporting system states that “tougher gun laws have done nothing to lower Canada’s homicide rates,” which has seriously questioned the need for defending strict anti-gun laws throughout Canada.
The response to these arguments, however, has manifested itself in what quickly has amounted to a provincial nullification crisis. In other words, Quebec is attempting to create its own directory of long-gun owners in the wake of any registry dissolution, defying a law about to be put forth by the national government that would destroy all federal and provincial records contained in the registry. Quebec’s chief firearms officer has been strictly directed by provincial authorities to secure information from the registry regarding Quebec’s citizenry, and to begin the construction of a province-wide registry. A true dilemma is now unfolding, as Quebec is forced to choose between obeying federal mandate to destroy the directory or conforming to its own electorate and the will of local officials. The national government has remained firmly opposed to individual provincial registries, as has been the case of Prime Minister Harper. Privacy Czar Jennifer Stoddart has insisted, however, that the government has no reason to be so uncompromising. According to Stoddart, the law says nothing that would prevent “the federal government from sharing the data with provincial governments.” In essence, the government has no prerequisite to withhold the information to be found in each province’s registry, especially when that registry has already been financed largely by Quebec’s tax revenue. It simply amounts to a desire on the part of the Conservatives to minimize gun control by granting neither access to the registry data nor permission to create provincial registries.
The removal of the national registry is another example of the government’s flippant attitude towards gun control policy. No one denies that the spread of arms throughout the hemisphere poses a huge threat to international security. The recent “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal in Mexico proves that mismanagement of firearm practices in developed countries presents serious consequences for developing or underdeveloped nations. If guns are made more readily available in Canada, the proliferation of these arms to other, more retrogressive nations that can be dominated by criminal activity becomes even easier. While many long-range weapons to be found within the registry are used for game or sport, the deconstruction of the national registry is a step in a decidedly right-wing direction. The consequences of cavalier ownership and the provision of weapons unchecked by the government could prove catastrophic for Canada and the entire hemisphere.
Wow……….what utter and complete drivel.
CPC coalition?? Come again? The only Coalition was that attempted by the LEFTISTS and they were crushed in the 2011 election. The only political opportunism was that of the Liberals when C-68 was created. Dancing in the blood of crime victims as usual.
You state "No one denies that the spread of arms throughout the hemisphere poses a huge threat to international security.
Who elected the likes of YOU to speak for anyone? it is the OVERREGULATION of firerms by govements that is the real threat.
For a body that purports to be some kind of expert voice on Western Hemisphere events and politics, you sure did lose a metric crapload of credibility with your statement about the "coalition" government. Canada elected a MAJORITY Conservative government, who, by the way, campaigned on a promise of removing the ineffective, wasteful and unnecessary gun registry.
Here's a bit of a news flash for the anti-gun groups that you cited in your article: we've tried it your way for 15 years, and it hasn't worked. Suicides haven't dropped, gun crimes haven't dropped, and the real bad guys still have unfettered access to illegal black market firearms. How much more proof do you need?
droid1963
PS: Ken Lewenza, does getting hit by one of the cars your union assembles make a person an expert on auto safety? NO? Then tell me when you became a "go-to guy" for opinions on gun control.
I am amazed that even the most basic of information in this article is incorrect. The current Canadian Government isn't any sort of "coalition" or "alliance." The Conservative party is the democratically elected majority government of Canada. The "gun lobby" you are referring to are the average Canadians who voted them to power, with the destruction of the registry being one of the main election issues.
The registry does nothing to prevent any sort of violence. As we are seeing in the committee hearings, the opposition to bill c-19 has no proof whatsoever as to any public safety benefits, homicide OR suicide. In fact, the shooting in Dawson occurred AFTER the registry was put into place.
As for the "Fast and Furious" fiasco, if anything, it proves that government agencies with a political agenda are LESS trustworthy than the average citizen when it comes to firearms. If you were really concerned with the proliferation of arms, you would be demanding the disbandment of the BATFE, and that the agents responsible face criminal charges.
What was the point of this article again?
Sounds to me like a continuation of the nonsense spewed forth by the Coalition for Gun Control (Canada).
The fact is, the present 'majority' government campaigned on this issue and was able to get a significant numerical advantage in votes over the people who want to 'nanny state' the poor Canadian firearms owners.
One thing about the Canadian population is that they hate it when governments and bean counters bully this little guy. The election and the resulting proposed legislation is the result of years of treating firearms owners as dumb red necks.
Consequently the pendulum is now swinging back to the common sense side of the firearms ownership. and the above named in the article are essentially whining that their gravey train is coming to a close.
One last item, the coalition refered to in the article, simply doesn't exist., unless you are referring to a coalition of Canadians, who elected the present government. Its hard for the left leaning members of the Canadian public to understand, not everyone has bought into their rhetoric.
I think you need to learn about Canadian politics if your going to keep writing about Canadian issues.
For instance, " Since the conservatives and their allies were able to muster a working majority government on May 3, 2011, initiatives to remove the registry and cater to the gun lobby have been anticipated." Who are these allies? The Canadian people elected the Conservatives into majority government.
"The recent “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal in Mexico proves that mismanagement of firearm practices in developed countries presents serious consequences for developing or underdeveloped nations."
You've got to be kidding me.
Issue: The US Government is the largest single supplier of firearms from the US to Mexican Drug Cartels (either through official state department sales to corrupt Mexican Army and Police officials, official sales to Central American armories, or via the Dep't of Justice's Fast & Furious smuggling ring). While most drug cartel firearms in Mexico don't come from the US, those that do are pretty likely to have been provided by the US Gov't.
Solution: Give national governments more control over small arms!
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? In this particular issue, government control of firearms and government immunity to charges of wrongdoing is the problem. It seems that regular citizens, both in Canada and in the US, are less likely to engage in widespread gun trafficking that you're ostensibly concerned about than the government is.
Thank goodness Canada recently killed their long gun registry over the irrational, emotional objections such as those you've raised in this column. The program wasted $100 million/year, enough money to put almost 1500 police officers on the streets. I suspect that 1500 more police would have much more impact on crime and trafficking and do much more to better the Canadian people than the useless registry.