SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: A badly-designed firearms safety course has been imposed upon the recreational firearms community by the federal government. Because firearms and firearms disciplines both vary widely, it is quite difficult to create a safety course that is both cross- disciplinary in nature and good in practice. The government's choice of authors for its Canadian Firearms Safety Course was poor. It is glaringly obvious to any genuine expert that the authors of the Course lacked the broad scope of training and expertise required for such an ambitious effort. The Canadian Firearms Safety Course imposed by the federal government is so defective that we have been unable to find any shooting range that will allow any graduate legal, unsupervised access to its shooting range facilities. It has been found necessary to re-train every graduate to acceptable standards. The cost of a Firearms Acquisition Certificate has become prohibitive for most young people who become interested in handgun shooting. It costs them $100 to $300 for the course, $50 for the Firearms Acquisition Certificate, plus a club membership fee, probably a club training fee, and the purchase price of the handgun before they can even apply to register a first handgun. In contrast, they can now buy an illegal handgun at nearly any sleazy bar--with no training, no paperwork, and often for less money than the price of a legally-purchased handgun. While a young person who chooses the legal route will get proper safety training and go on to enjoy an interesting hobby, the young person who buys an illegal handgun will get little or no training. He is subject to criminal prosecution--if the authorities can find him--but soon learns that enforcing the firearms control laws is nearly impossible. If he is reasonably circumspect, it is highly unlikely that he will ever be caught. The actual result of the Kim Campbell wave of legislation has been a massive increase in smuggling of firearms, loss of business for legitimate firearms dealers--nearly all small businesses--and a distinct increase in firearms crime. The bad results were perfectly predictable. If the government cannot stop smuggling of cigarettes, marijauna, or liquor--and it has proved that it cannot--then the smuggling of firearms cannot be stopped either. Firearms are small, compact, high- profit items; big profits can be made from small shipments. Cigarettes, liquor and marijauna must normally be smuggled in large, bulky shipments to create reasonable profit levels. The massive increase in the smuggling of handguns and illegal ownership of handguns by untrained youths leads inexorably to questions about public safety. Instead of directing the young person's natural interest in the tools of war and hunting--two of mankind's oldest occupations-- into useful and productive channels, Bill C-68 tries to strangle that interest. Each young person is told that his interest in firearms is unacceptable to Ottawa, and must be dropped. Most firearms control law, by its very nature, is regulatory law. In Canada's case, it is embedded in the Criminal Code, where much of it clearly does not belong. Most Canadians support the criminal law much more than they support regulatory law. They obey criminal law, and turn in violators of criminal law. Those statements are not true when applied to regulatory law, which commands far less respect. Embedding regulatory law within the Criminal Code is a dubious idea. It weakens public support for the lawmakers, for the police, and for the law itself. Consider this scenario: { {{You personally know three people who own unregistered handguns. Each is in violation of Criminal Code section 91(1), and is liable to imprisonment for up to 5 years. John has a Chinese pistol he acquired during the Korean War. He has no ammunition for it, and won't try registering it because he fears the police will confiscate it. (He is probably correct.) Mary owns a .22 rimfire handgun, smuggled in from the US, and uses it to kill rats in her barn. Clive has a .38 revolver which he uses to hold up milk stores and gas stations. Pick up your phone and call the police. Will you turn in all three criminals, or only Clive?}}} Most Canadians, faced with that choice, choose to turn in only Clive. It is a gut level reaction which requires explanation. Sir William Blackstone wrote the standard reference work on British common law, "Commentaries," in the early 1700s. The first chapter, entitled "Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals" sets forth the three great absolute rights: { {{1. The right of personal security: a right to one's life, limbs, body, health and reputation. 2. The right of personal liberty: a right to move one's person from place to place without imprisonment or restraint. 3. The right of personal property: a right to use, enjoy or dispose of all one's acquisitions.}}} There is no definition of "crime" in the Criminal Code. That has led to the creeping growth of bad law dealing with regulatory offences inside the Criminal Code, written and enforced as if they dealt with true crimes. They bring the Criminal Code into public disrepute, although few understand how or why. At gut level, Canadians recognize that "crime" means any deliberate or wantonly reckless action that seriously threatens, injures or destroys another person's right to personal security, personal liberty, or personal property. Any "crime" which does not meet that standard also does not enjoy overwhelming public support. That is why the majority of Canadian will not turn in John or Mary, although they know that each is just as guilty of violating CC s. 91(1) as Clive. 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