RETROACTIVE CRIMINALIZATION IN BILL C-68

Bill C-68's Criminal Code (CC) section 84(1) "prohibited firearm"
(a) converts all handguns with barrels 105mm or less in length,
and all .25 and .32 handguns, to "prohibited firearm" status.

Firearms Act (FA) section 113(1) and (2)(b) [including reference
to s. 12(6)] convert the Firearms Acquisition Certificate of any
person who held a registration certificate for a handgun with a
barrel at or under 105mm length, or a handgun in .25 or .32
calibre, on or before 14 Feb 95, into a licence to "acquire and
possess" more such firearms.  The holders are "grandfathered,"
forming an elite group which other Canadians cannot join.

Until Bill C-68 is passed, such handguns are "restricted firearms"
under CC s. 84(1) "restricted firearm" (a).  It is perfectly legal
to own and register them.  If Bill C-68 passes, they will be
reclassified as "prohibited firearms"--retroactive to 14 Feb 95.

A person may lawfully acquire his first "14 Feb" handgun after 14
Feb 95 and before proclamation of Bill C-68.  On C-68's date of
proclamation, his firearm becomes a "prohibited firearm" as of 14
Feb 95, and he becomes a criminal, subject to prosecution under
[Bill C-68's] CC s. 91(2) and/or 92(2).  The penalties are
imprisonment not exceeding five [91(2)] and ten [92(2)] years.

(Oddly enough, it might be proper for the prosecution to use the
version os s. 90 that was in force before the proclamation of
Bill C-68, on the grounds that C-68 made the firearm a
"prohibited firearm" as of 14 Feb 95 and that the old law was in
force from 14 Feb 95 to C-68's proclamation date.)

The passage of Bill C-68 will immediately result in police trying
to confiscate lawfully-acquired "14 Feb" firearms from those not
"grandfathered"--using threats of prosecution, heavy lawyer fees,
and possible imprisonment to deter access to the courts.

In effect, the police offer the owner a choice: "Voluntarily"
surrender your property, or face criminal prosecution.  That is
apparently a violation of CC s. 346:
{
{{346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable
justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by
threats...[or] menaces... induces or attempts to induce any
person... to do anything...

(1.1) Every one who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for life.}}}

If a court rules that the actions of the police and Parliament do
not amount to a conspiracy to commit extortion, the preception of
Canada's huge recreational firearms community will be at odds
with the perception of that court.  The facts are too obvious.
Parliament apparently does not wish to pay compensation to most
of the owners of the many newly-"prohibited" firearms now
scheduled for immediate or later confiscation.

That is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.  As
Peter W. Hogg noted in "Constitutional Law of Canada" at 28.5(d): 
{
{{"There is a rule of statutory interpretation in
Anglo-Canadian law that a statute which takes property is to be
read as implicitly requiring that compensation be paid to the
private owner."}}}

Because many Canadians have their life savings largely tied up in
firearms collections that will be rendered valueless by Bill
C-68, the damage to their interests will be huge--as will the
damage to heirs who will be unable to inherit valuable property.

If the Supreme Court of Canada follows {Manitoba Fisheries v.
the Queen} [(1979) 1 SCR 101] and {The Queen (BC) v. Tener}
[(1985) 1 SCR 533] it seems likely that Bill C-68's plan to
refuse compensation payments to nearly everyone affected by Bill
C-68 will be overruled by the courts, and Parliament will pay.

Whatever happens--and it will take years to sort the mess out--
the law will have been brought into disrepute, the police will
have been forced into adversarial positions against honest gun
owners, and the non-system-using criminals will be unaffected.

Conclusions of Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire
Constabulary (writing in Police Review, Britain) after he had
done a six-month study of firearms control methods and their
actual (as opposed to theoretical) effects in many countries: 
{
{{"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime
market is small, and these are supplied no matter what controls
are instituted.  Controls have had serious effects on legitimate
users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of
this country or in the experience of other countries in which
controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to
criminals, or in any way reduced crime."}}}

He was right.  The latest British Home Office statistics for
England and Wales show violent crime (excluding "political"
crime) have doubled every 10 years since 1946.  Britain's
recreational firearms industry has been destroyed.  Many honest
shooters now keep their firearms in Belgium to avoid the next
wave of confiscation.  Has gun control worked?  No.

British firearms crime rates are at an all-time high and continue
to rise.  What else could one expect?  Firearms are easy to
smuggle, police are easy to avoid while committing a violent
crime, and their government guarantees that the victim will have
no effective way to protect himself or his family.  Any criminal
who has a firearm can totally dominate any victim situation.

Our Minister of Justice, Alan Rock, has said on several occasions
that no Canadian has any need of firearms for self-protection. 
If so, why does he regularly dip into the public purse to cover the
expense of armed bodyguards to protect his own sacred skin?



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