NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION

                THE GRANDFATHERING MESS IN BILL C-68

	The fundamental principle of "grandfathering" is bringing the
law into disrepute. On the one hand, Parliament is saying that the
firearms converted to "prohibited weapon" status (either by order in
Council or by legislation) are so dangerous to society that they must
be eliminated.  On the other hand, Parliament is saying that those same
firearms are so safe in our society that the owners can keep them until
they die, and continue to buy, sell and trade them.  One of those
concepts has to be wrong.

	Bill C-68 makes certain knives "Prohibited weapons" which
cannot be imported, bought, sold or traded by anyone.  That is clear,
but its conditions regarding "prohibited firearms" are far less clear:
They are treated like "restricted firearms" under Firearms Act (FA) s.
12 (6) and 26(b), or like unrestricted firearms under FA s. 12(2) to
(5) and 26(a), but not like "prohibited weapons."

	That is curious; the "Prohibited firearms" are, when in the
hands of someone who is malicious, untrained or incompetent, far more
dangerous than the knives selected as "prohibited weapons."

	Bill C-68 proposes subdividing "prohibited firearms" into 5
groups, owned by 5 groups of owners (FA s. 12(2) to (6)), who may buy,
sell and trade within each group [FA s. 113(2)(b)).  There are
provisions for similar new groups to be established by Order in Council
at any time [FA s. 12(7)), further confusing things.

	Each member of the 5 groups is therefore regarded, in law, as a
member of a trusted elite, while all other Canadians--and all future
Canadians--will not be trusted in the same way.  It is difficult to
understand the basis for that discrimination.  Does it mean that C-68's
drafters believe Canadians are degenerating?

	The 5 groups of "prohibited firearms" do not include the
firearms most commonly used by Canadian violent criminals.  If the
firearms control provisions were intended to affect crime and
criminals, that would obviously not be the situation today.

	It is often not possible to determine whether a particular
firearm is unrestricted, a "restricted weapon," or a "prohibited
weapon" simply by examining the firearm.  The status of the firearm
often depends upon its status in government records on one particular
date.  The government's own survey ("Review of Firearms Registration,
TR1994-9e") proves that those records are grossly inadequate to prove
anything in a court of law.

	Frequently, two identical firearms fall into different status
categories; one is a grandfathered "prohibited weapon," and the other
is not.  It is not possible to distinguish between them by any physical
characteristic.  one can be bought, sold, traded and owned within the
law; the other never can.

	In such a scrambled-egg situation, it is becoming steadily more
apparent that allowing the government to register firearms has the
result that the government then confiscates the firearm or at least
gets the owner into trouble due to the government's proven inefficiency
at operating the registration system.

	Kim Campbell's regime converted many firearms from unrestricted
status to "restricted weapon" status, so that the government would know
where they were.  Almost as soon as they entered the registration
system, the Allan Rock regime converted them to "prohibited weapon"
status.  That has been widely accepted as indicative of the overall
scheme of things to come.

	The cost of operating within the law has steadily risen, and it
is now frequently easier, cheaper and quicker to buy illegal firearms
in Canada than it is to buy legal ones.  Respect for the law has
declined, primarily because the arrogance, ignorance and incompetence
of the government officials running the system and drafting revisions
to it is apparent to anyone directly involved.

	This ludicrous state of affairs has brought the law into
disrepute.  It apparent to the meanest wit that the firearms control.
provisions of the Criminal Code are being used by the Party in power as
a way to impose its simplistic social engineering theories upon
Canadians.

	The theory apparently is that progressive firearms control,
tending toward complete elimination of all privately-owned firearms,
has beneficial effects for the society.  Evidence that the theory is
true ranges from scanty to nil.  Evidence that it reduces violent
crime, suicides, or homicides proves that it does not.  They all tend
to rise after a wave of firearms control.

	On the other hand, there is a great deal of well-researched
scientific evidence that the theory is false.  The office of the
Minister of Justice was castigated by the Auditor General in his 1993
Report for failing to evaluate the evidence and proceeding on the basis
of unsubstantiated theory.  That was ignored.

	It has not escaped the notice of the recreational firearms
community that the few safeguards in place today are severely eroded or
totally destroyed by Bill C-68.  For example, the requirement to place
orders in council before each House of Parliament for 30 sitting days
has been neatly destroyed by the combination of FA s. 112(6) and CC s.
117.15. The objective determination ("a kind not commonly used in
Canada for hunting or sporting purposes") protection offered to hunters
for their firearms by the current CC s. 84(i) "prohibited weapon" (e)
has been replaced by the Minister's opinion ("in the opinion of the
Governor in Council ... is reasonable for use in Canada... 11).

	If Bill C-68 passes, the Minister has carte blanche to convert
any and all firearms to "prohibited firearm" status; to revoke their
registration certificates under FA s. 121(2)(b); and thereby to force
their confiscation as "prohibited firearms."



NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS:           EDITORIAL AND PUBLICATION:
Box 1779                         Box 4384,  Station C
Edmonton AB  T5J 2P1             Calgary AB  T2T 5N2
Canada                           Canada 
Tel: (403) 439-1394              Tel: (403) 640-1110