Please allow me the opportunity to address a letter published in the June 3 edition of The Telegram, directed toward my letter published on May 23 concerning the recent order in council (OIC) prohibiting certain firearms.
It incorrectly stated that I had said “the government has no right to restrict the type of property that someone owns.”
I did not question the government’s authority to make policy, rather I expressed my disagreement with this fundamentally unjust law.
The author of that letter also stated that “The Canadian public has decided, by more than a supermajority, that assault weapons — and guns that look like them — should be banned.”
That I must address.
The Canadian public did not decide to ban these firearms. That decision was made by a minority government without discussion or debate of our elected representatives during a pandemic aimed only at the lawful.
Assault rifles (ie fully automatic firearms) were banned in 1977.
People are led to believe they are supporting a ban on “machine guns,” but target-shooting and hunting rifles that are not in criminal hands are the target.
As for guns that look like something else that is utter nonsense. The cover of a book does not always accurately represent its contents no more than the colour of a person’s skin has anything to do with their character.
It is the uninformed populace that are being manipulated with terms such as “military-style rifle” — a term that still has no legal definition. If you keep hearing the same thing it is human nature to believe it. Hitler’s minister of public enlightenment and propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes accepted as truth.”
I am in favour of reasonable controls on firearms but what happened with the May 1 ban is far from reasonable and was hastily instituted due to the action of the N.S. murderer who went on a killing spree in April.
I recently learned the five firearms he had were all illegally obtained, with one belonging to the police officer he murdered.
No ban would not have stopped that tragedy.
However, the government’s response is to take away citizens’ legally acquired property.
How is that reasonable?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 7, states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The recent prohibition is fundamentally unjust because it arbitrarily deprives owners of their property without good reason. Moreover, this ban has not prohibited all semi-auto and not even all so-called military “style” semi-auto firearms.
A licenced person can still purchase a semi-auto version of a military rifle currently in use by a foreign power that is as effective as any AR-15 using the same ammunition.
Why ban “A” and leave “B” unaffected if A = B?
Gun control policy should be based on reason, science, and evidence not arbitrary irrational selection. That is why this prohibition is being subjected to a Charter challenge.
To, again, clarify my position — I am of the strong opinion that the May 1 gun ban (through an OIC) cannot achieve the goal of making Canadians safer because it punishes only the law-abiding.
Everyone who holds a firearms licence, POL (Possession Only) or PAL (Possession and Acquisition), are recorded in the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS).
Every day CFIS automatically checks with the Canadian Police Information Centre to determine whether a licence holder has been the subject of an incident report.
If the Liberal government successfully confiscates the property of a vetted law-abiding minority instead of criminals what else might they arbitrarily do?
Neal Tucker
President
Discovery Shooting Club Inc.
Elliston
