From owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Fri Dec 13 21:29:43 1996 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Presentation on Regulations This is the sixth in a series of analytical papers dealing with the Nov 96 Regulations, intended for use by those making presentations to the House subcommittee in late Jan 97. Fell free to study, adapt, copy, and plagiarize. ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA ADAPTATIONS REGULATIONS 1 and its succeeding regulations make heavy use of the word "traditional" without defining what is meant by that word. Are "traditional hunting practices," for example, limited to bow, arrow and spear techniques? Is leaving a city residence to hunt moose with a modern semi-automatic rifle a "traditional hunting practice?" As with most of the Regulations, this section suffers from vagueness, ill-defined or undefined terms, and the ill-informed status of the writer. As usual, a government bureaucrat who neither lives nor works in the subject environment -- in this case, the Aboriginal's environment -- is trying to make the rules, and doing it badly. In the definition of "Aboriginal community," what is the dividing line between "traditional" and non-traditional? In the definition of "elder," what does "recognized" mean, and by what percentage of "the members" must the person be "recognized" as "their representative? Those are serious questions, particularly in split communities. 3 apparently applies severe limitations upon non-member, non-community and non-traditional Aboriginals. How much conflict with Treaty rights does this set up? 4 raises an old question. Firearms Act section [FA s.] 117(u) purports to give the Minister (thinly disguised as the Governor in Council) the authority to amend the provisions of the Firearms Act -- in favor of or against the interests of the Aboriginal peoples -- at will. There is considerable question as to whether or not that can be done, because interpretation of the Firearms Act enacted by Parliament -- by the courts -- then becomes subject to regulations created by a mere Minister. 5 is an insulting provision, in that it singles out the Aboriginal peoples as likely to require special provisions due to illiteracy and/or lack of a sound command of English and/or French. 6 suffers from a common problem: It calls into effect FA s. 106(3), "'statement' means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge," 106(1) "Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of procuring a license...knowingly makes a statement (note that the _offence_ is making the "statement" and that the _definition_ of "statement" includes facts, honest opinions and beliefs, and knowledge) that is false or misleading..." Analysis of the grammar of that provision shows that the clause "that is false or misleading" is _not_ part of the definition of the _offence_. The offence is committed if the person who made the "statement" made it in good faith, believing it to be true, and it later turned out to be wrong. The penalty for making such an honest mistake is [FA s. 109] up to five years imprisonment. And that is wrong, especially when the applicant is required to make a "declaration" that someone fits into such ill-defined categories. The disastrous consequences of error are out of all proportion to the "offence." 7 is a pious wish. The opportunity to submit additional documents, without a procedure and requirements as to how the Chief Firearms Officer [CFO] shall handle them, is not a useful thing to put into the regulations. 8 and 9 attempt to amend FA s. 55 and 58(1) by distinguishing an Aboriginal's application from any other application, and that is racial discrimination. It is particularly vicious in that the CFO can only refuse or impose conditions for reasons of public safety, and regulation 8 is trying to override the CFO's public safety concerns by raising lesser matters. 11, and its associated FA s. 8(3) constitute a remarkable blunder, in that they authorize the issuance of a license to _possess_ a firearm to a person between the ages of 12 and 18, but do not authorize a license to _acquire_ that firearm. Without a license to _acquire_, both of these provisions are useless, because it is a criminal offence for the holder to acquire, and for any other person to deliver a firearm to him. 12 to 17 again discriminate on the basis of race, but on such a vague basis that the potential for abuse outweighs the favorable discrimination that is apparently being attempted. 18 and 19 allow large numbers of Aboriginals to claim eligibility for a license on the basis that they could, if they wished to, borrow a firearm on the commencement date. That situation is also common among non-Aboriginals, but non-Aboriginals are not given equal treatment. That is racial discrimination. It apparently arises from some wooly-mided concept of communal sharing by Aboriginals that is never found among non-aboriginal families or groups. And that is wrong. 21 is the product of the fat-headed mind of a bureaucrat seated comfortably in a chair in a heated Ottawa office. Do bureaucrats in Ottawa actually think that people "in a remote wilderness area" are going to store firearms in such a fashion that a bear can kill the entire dog team before the "unloaded" firearm and ammunition that is "not readily accessible" can be brought together, the firearm loaded, and the rogue bear dispatched? I recommend a few field trips! 22 amends the Firearms Act, apparently because the writers of the Act did not foresee this problem. It is doubtful whether such a method of amendment is legal. Dave Tomlinson, NFA The Aboriginal peoples are terribly vulnerable under the Firearms Act. I expect to see a number of provisions favorable to the Aboriginal peoples in the first wave or regulations, followed by many that are hostile to them once the election is over.