Reply #11: oh really, O'Reilly?

[iverglas]

(That's how the saying goes, I believe.)

Every gun control proponent who has ever posted here has said something to the effect of "I only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and "I don't want to ban guns I just want to make sure they are only owned by good people" or "The only guns that I want to see banned are assault weapons".

Would I be correct in assuming that I am included in the class of "every gun control proponent who has ever posted here"?

Would you then be so kind as to cite something I have said that can be reduced to one (or more) of the three statements you apparently wish to put in my mouth?

"Banning handguns is something every gun control proponent here has said they would not do."

Ding, wrong again. I fully support Canadian laws/regulations regarding handguns, which I believe (I could be wrong) you would characterize as "banning handguns". I would therefore plainly not "disagree with this town for doing that" because of my opposition to "banning handguns". (Where I'm at, there would probably be some constitutional difficulties if a municipality decided to prohibit keeping a particular kind of firearm within the municipality, and I might oppose such a municipal ban on those grounds, i.e. that the by-law in question was properly characterized as "in relation to the criminal law", a jurisdiction that belongs to the federal government here.)

Up here, very much like down there, a government that wishes to restrict an individual liberty (and the possession of a particular type of firearm could possibly be characterized as an exercise of liberty) must demonstrate that it has justification, under the constitutional rules for determining justification, for doing so. So far, our Supreme Court has held (in a challenge to the legislation brought by the Government of Alberta) that Parliament had jurisdiction to enact the 1995 Firearms Act:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.html

The Firearms Act constitutes a valid exercise of Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law. The Act in "pith and substance" is directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms. Its purpose is to deter the misuse of firearms, control those given access to guns, and control specific types of weapons. It is aimed at a number of "mischiefs", including the illegal trade in guns, both within Canada and across the border with the United States, and the link between guns and violent crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. The purpose of the Firearms Act conforms with the historical public safety focus of all gun control laws. The changes introduced by the Act represent a limited expansion of the pre-existing gun control legislation. The effects of the Act also suggest that its essence is the promotion of public safety. The criteria for acquiring a licence are concerned with safety. Criminal record checks and background investigations are designed to keep guns out of the hands of those incapable of using them safely. Safety courses ensure that gun owners are qualified.

The Firearms Act possesses all three criteria required for a criminal law. Gun control has traditionally been considered valid criminal law because guns are dangerous and pose a risk to public safety. The regulation of guns as dangerous products is a valid purpose within the criminal law power. That purpose is connected to prohibitions backed by penalties.

... The problems associated with the misuse of firearms are firmly grounded in morality. However, even if gun control did not involve morality, it could still fall under the federal criminal law power. Parliament can use the criminal law to prohibit activities which have little relation to public morality.

That case dealt only with the question of federal vs. provincial jurisdiction.

As far as I know, firearms enthusiasts have been no more diligent in Canada than they have in the US about challenging firearms control legislation based on individual constitutional rights.

.