FACTS?  OR  LIES
 
In the Department of Justice booklet "FACTS ABOUT THE FIREARMS 
BILL, JUNE 1995," we find many things to question.  In what 
follows, we will use the booklet's "Q(uestion)" numbers.

Q1 paragraph 1:  
"The registration system will be similar to driver's licenses 
and car ownership permits.
That is false.
Driver's licenses come under regulatory law; firearms licenses 
come under criminal law.  There is no such thing as a "car 
ownership permit" in law; there is car registration, but one 
can own a car without a registration certificate if it is not 
used on public roadways.  Violations of laws regarding drivers' 
licenses do not involve imprisonment or a criminal record; 
firearms license violations involve both.

Q1 paragraph 1:  
". . . a Firearms License, which will be similar to a driver's 
license in that it will show that a person is entitled to have 
or acquire certain firearms." 
Driver's licenses certify that the holder has been tested, and 
has demonstrated adequate skill and adequate knowledge of the 
rules to ensure safety.  In no way does it show that a person 
is entitled to have or acquire certain motor vehicles.

Q1 paragraph 1:
"The license will. . . not identify the types of firearms owned."
That is patently ridiculous, if true, because the seller of a 
firearm is required to determine from the license, whether or 
not the buyer is entitled to buy firearms of that class. {See 
Firearms Act section (FA s.)  22(a) [now renumbered as 23(a)].}

Q1 paragraph 2:
"This [Registration} Certificate will be similar to a car 
 ownership permit."
Since there is currently no such document as a "car ownership 
permit," the question arises: Does the government intend to 
take over motor vehicle law from the provinces, and impose 
them?


Q2:
"A [Firearms License] renewal form will be mailed to you. . ."
If you fail to renew (renewal notice didn't arrive, on vacation, 
 etc.) you automatically become a criminal, subject to at least 
5 years imprisonment, under Criminal Code section (CC s.)  91 or 
 92.

In Reference re: Section 94 of the Motor Vehicle Act (1985) 2 
SCR 486, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that type of 
 legislation unconstitutional and invalid.

Q3:
"The Registration Certificate is good for the life of the 
 firearm. . ."
That is false.
FA  s.  121(2) [now renumbered to 127(2)]: "A Registration 
 Certificate. . . expires on (b) December 31, 2002, or such 
other date as is prescribed."

Q4:
This says that Registration will not cost $100.  It will cost 
"no more that $10" but you can expect "costs (sic) increasing 
on a sliding scale over the five-year phase-in periods (sic)." 
That means that the fees will increase--probably to well over 
$100.  The legislation is silent on dollar amounts, but allows 
unlimited increases, unscrutinised by Parliament, through FA s.
110(q.1) [117(r)] and 112(1) [119(1)].

Q5:
This promises "volume discounts" for registering numbers of 
firearms.  The legislation is silent on this point, but perhaps 
the pamphlet's author knows more than the law tells.  One 
wonders at his ability to predict a future Minister's actions.

Q6:
This answer is wrong.  FA s. 113 [120] says that an FAC is 
"deemed to be a license" of one of several types on proclamation 
of FA s. 113 [120]; it is not "valid until. . . expiry", but 
changes its very nature--at once.

Q7:
Firearms owners"will be able to obtain their Firearms License 
and a Registration Certificate by mailing in the applications." 
That is quite insane.  It delivers both documents with no 
screening of the applicant, and with no examination of the 
firearm to see if the Registration data matches the firearm.

That is a display of the "Catch-22" nature of C-68's system: 
Registration and licensing can only be done economically if 
the safeguards are omitted.  They are useless if the safeguards 
are not included, granting licenses to unscreened applicants 
and issuing Registration Certificates that are riddled with 
errors.

Q9:
The requirement to present a License prevents a farmer's wife 
from buying .22 rimfire cartridges to kill rats on the farm 
when the farmer is busy with planting or reaping.  It is an 
admission that the system does not and cannot keep firearms out 
of the hands of criminals, but one wonders how and why a system 
that fails to control firearms can succeed in controlling 
cartridges.

Q11
"All fees will be reviewed by Parliament." That is false and 
grossly misleading; while an initial fee should be reviewed 
under FA s.  111 [118], any subsequent change in the fee 
structure will not be, under FA s.  112(1) [119(1)].  The 
potential for abuse is unlimited.

Q13
"Police who find someone in possession of an unregistered 
firearm will check out this person." Possession of an 
unregistered firearm will be a crime under CC s.  91 and 92, 
and they will "check out this person"?!  Why not arrest him? 

Q14 
"Australia's National Committee on Violence recently 
recommended that registration of all firearms be made national 
in scope." Australia's federal government rejected that 
recommendation, so why tell us this and not that?

Q17
Americans can, at the border, apply for a "renewable 60-day 
license" (which doubles as a Firearms License, Registration 
Certificate and Customs Declaration) without having to meet 
the standards that Canadian citizens must. Why does our 
government trust Americans more than Canadians? 

Q18 
"The security of CPIC has never been broken."  That is flatly 
 false; CPIC data has often been given to unauthorized people 
by police officers and others with access to the system, and 
it is completely unknown whether or not skilled hackers  
have entered the system.  A skilled hacker leaves no traces. 

Q19 
". . . opponents argued that [the FAC] would lead to the 
confiscation of all firearms.  That did not happen."

To date, many categories of registered firearms have been 
re-designated as "prohibited weapons" or "prohibited firearms," 
to be confiscated immediately, or on the death of the owner.

Some 58 per cent of all registered firearms have already been 
confiscated, or their later confiscation has already been 
ordered.   That is cause for serious concern, especially when 
FA s.  111 [118] and 112 [119] combine with CC s.  117.15 to 
authorize this or any future Minister of Justice to "prohibit" 
any firearm, cartridge or accessory by Order in Council (OIC). 

Scrutiny of such an OIC by Parliament is avoided by FA s. 112(6)
[119(6)].  Any possibility of the overturning of his "opinion" 
by a court of law is avoided by the language of CC. s. 
117.15(2).  The courts cannot substitute the opinion of a 
court for the "opinion of the Governor in Council" specified in 
the law.

And we're not supposed to fear confiscation?

Q20 
"Nothing in the Firearms Act will permit search and seizure." 
That is a completely false statement.

FA s.  99(1) [101(2)]: ". . . an inspector may. . .enter and 
inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable 
grounds that a business is being carried on, or there is a 
record of a business. . . [or] a gun collection or a record 
[of] a gun collection or. . .a prohibited firearm or. . .more 
than 10 firearms and may"

	(I) open any container. . .
	
	(ii) examine any firearm and examine any other thing. . .

	 (iii) conduct any tests or analyses. . ."

FA s.  99(4) [102(4): "An inspector whop takes any thing while 
carrying out an inspection. . .must give. . .a receipt." 

If "seizure" is not permitted, how does he "take" it? 

FA s.  101(2) [104(2)]: "A justice who is satisfied [that] 
	(a) the conditions. . .described in section 99 exist. . .

	may issue a warrant authorizing the inspector to enter 
	that dwelling-house. . ." 

Once in, the "inspector" (who is expected to normally be a 
police officer) may behave as specified in FA s.  99 [102].


David Tomlinson
National President
National Firearms Association