TRAFFICKING IN GUNS The government talks about "phasing in" Bill C-68's registration and controls over several years. That is sucker bait. Every new firearm, cartridge or used firearm you acquire or part with (even by gift) is subject to controls and registration from the first day that the relevant part of Bill C-68 is passed and proclaimed. If Bill C-68 passes, Criminal Code Section 99 will say: 99.(1) Every person commits an offence who (a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or (b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of a firearm [or]...any ammunition {knowing} that [he] is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations [made by Order in Council (OIC)]. (2) Every person who commits [that] offence...is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. So giving a firearm or an unusual cartridge to your father for his birthday earns you a minimum of one year in prison. If you don't {know} that some Act or regulation forbids the transfer, CC s. 101 reduces that to "{imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years}"--a penalty for ignorance of the law. These section of the Criminal Code are called the "Trafficking Offences." It is quite clear that the government intends to treat all transfers of firearms and ammunition in the same way that it treats transfers of narcotics. It is neither accident nor coincidence that much of C-68's Firearms Act looks like it was taken from the Narcotics Act. Both are based on the federal government's power to make criminal law, and both evade the Constitutional power split that gives regulatory power over property and property transfers to the provincial governments. The link between the Firearms Act and the Narcotics Act is so close that s. 98 to 101 of the Firearms Act are specifically designed to be used for Charter-violating police "fishing expedition" searches for narcotics, either without a warrant or with a warrant obtained on evidence that would be flatly rejected by any judge issuing a search warrant for narcotics today. The Liberal Party's interest in "trafficking" apparently stems at least partly from current United Nations interest in controlling international transfers of arms. The UN has been agitating for rigorous control over private possession of arms in all countries, primarily because most of the UN countries have problems with internal dissidence, armed or otherwise. The theory that dissidents can be prevented from getting arms by international control of every firearm in the world by the existing governments seems unlikely to prove true. It has certainly been proved untrue that criminals can be prevented from acquiring weapons by any type of firearms control law. Rather than correct the government excesses which cause rising dissidence, most of the UN's member governments try to crush dissidence. Correcting the excesses might lead to a change in government or shifting power's benefits to a new group. In order to prop up existing governments (many of which would be immediately eliminated if their citizens had the power to do it), the UN has been encouraging its members to "crack down on illicit arms and the transfer of illicit arms." Many, like Canada, are using the UN's requests as an excuse to crack down on their own country's recreational firearms community. Look a little deeper; in most UN-member countries, "illicit arms" means arms in the possession of anyone who does not actively support the country's current local government. That is a dangerous concept. Throughout the world, many government officials--like Alan Rock--believe that no one but a soldier or policeman employed by the government should be armed. The difference between a police state and a state where no one but police and soldiers employed by the existing government is allowed to own firearms is very small. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts a government quite quickly. It is one small step from "The voters are disarmed and could not stop us if we decided not to hold any more elections" to actually doing it. The idea that war and rebellion can be eliminated by arms controls is unlikely to prove true. It is very similar to the idea that criminals can be disarmed and crime eliminated by a gun control law, and that idea has been proven to be false. The concept that dissidence and rebellion can be eliminated by government repression and a steady diet of reduction in civil rights has never worked, anywhere it has been tried. It has been tired repeatedly throughout human history. The usual result is rebellion, followed by elimination of either the rebels or the government. Repression can work, but only temporarily. It is particularly interesting that the periods we historically recognize as "the golden age" of each particular nation is usually the period when government interference with the civil rights of its citizens was at an all-time low. Because most people are good, trying to repress the evil people by repressing everyone always fails; it turns the good against the government. 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