Bill Blair Consultation
Yesterday I was invited to a stakeholders consultation on reducing gun violence. It was arranged by MP Stephanie Kusie and attended by Minister Bill Blair, MP Kent Hehr, MP Bob Benzan and MP Stephanie Kusie. Below are the notes that I prepared in case I was afforded the opportunity to speak and a brief commentary on the proceedings. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions, or just would like a day at the range.
Good Afternoon
My Name is Jason Philp, I am a field officer for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Past President of the Alberta and Canadian National Sporting Clays Association, Recreational rifle and handgun shooter, Father and husband to recreational shooters.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in these consultations.
I will be speaking on behalf of our CCFR membership as well as voicing my own personal opinions. I will do my best to indicate if any of my personal opinions veer from our organizations official positions, but I do not believe that I hold any conflicting opinions at this time. Perhaps that will change within the context of this meeting.
I bring to the table several concerns that I would like to have addressed here, if possible.
Firstly, any introduced legislation must be crime/criminal focused. A general prohibition would focus its attention initially on the licensed and registered owners because it is easy and would produce results that would appear to be significant but would have no positive immediate, (or eventual or long term) impact on violent crime. I use the term violent crime rather than “gun death” or gun violence” because we see massive differences in definitions used in various jurisdictions.
That brings me to my second point. It is imperative for honest discussions to be based on common but clearly defined language. We have seen the misuse of the term “assault”. The terms that have been discussed in the media are confusing/misleading, and quite possibly it is by design. Our stance is based on the importance of reducing real assault. Misrepresentative language incites ignorance-based fear. It is imperative that definitions be consistent through out all legislation, that firearms remain a federal purview and that the language is such that the general population has a reasonable understanding of what you intend to do and what the results are.
That brings us to the third point. It baffles and amazes the average Canadian the complexity of the laws we draft. And that we don’t include evaluation metrics and sunset clauses in the legislation. If we craft legislation that is incapable of producing a measurable result, then why do we craft the law? And why do we do it in this manner. And why do we keep the law if it doesn’t accomplish our aims, or worse, have unintended consequences or consequences contrary to the stated purpose of the law.
That brings a logical fourth point. This debate has featured several misleading statements, falsified statistics and in some cases, making stuff up. We understand that mistakes are possible. We also understand that choices and mistakes must carry negative consequences to ensure care is taken not to repeat them. "It is a fact that the majority of gun-related crimes in our communities are committed with guns that are domestically-sourced," RCMP Inspector Chris McBryan.
An ATIP was then obtained by Dennis R Young that proved that to be completely wrong. If elected officials are consistently wrong, dishonest or deceitful, we can fire them. What recourse do we have for bureaucrats? Don’t you think it would be reasonable for there to be a public recanting at least on the same level as the wrong information? There is no shortage of press conferences available to denigrate the progun position. We do not see the same coverage when we call to account inaccurate information. What we do get is pandering to the masses that are encouraged to remain ignorant.
This leads to my fifth point. Registration. We have had a centralized data base of all handguns (expanded to include restricted firearms, a category that defies logic) since 1934. Yet we still have gun crime. What value do you place on this information? Why do you feel that it is important to keep a store of information on me and my possessions? I have passed your test, filled out your form, passed your background check, and been subjected to daily enquiries through CPIC as to my eligibility to hold a firearms license. Why do you hold this data at greater importance than; where crime guns come from? What is a crime gun? What does domestically sourced mean? Who committed the crime? Where did they get the gun? Was it really a gun? Was it really a crime? Was it violent? Isn’t it more important to identify the reason behind the gun ban? And if your ban doesn’t solve the problem, was a ban the right solution?
Sixth point. We in the shooting community abhor senseless violence. Our shooting sports are the antithesis of violence. We poke holes in cardboard, we make steel ring like bells. We like to shoot, absolute focus on something that isn’t our job, or our mortgage serves a reset button for us. To be associated with the criminal elements that hurt, and kill our fellow Canadians is an insult. My daughters have done no wrong. To take away a heritage family activity is shameful. The shooting sports have less violence than our national past time. Hockey. A quick YouTube search shows that Golf features more violent incidents that Competitive shooting. Or recreational shooting or any legal shooting activity. I know that this is anecdotal, and I don’t present it as evidentiary argument, but rather as a request for focus.
We have a legal system. We have laws in place. We have a judiciary that makes decisions and judgements on our behalf that we have lost faith in. From the process that was used to punish Ian Thompson for choosing a firearm to save his own life, to the ridiculous fight that Mr. Goodale is involved in preventing Canadian citizens access to information that we have paid for with our taxes that he freely sells to organizations around the world. To the revolving door that allowed Leigh Ming, an Ontarian convicted of illegal possession of a firearm to be released with $10 fine and time served (pre-sentence custody of 45 days) so he could allegedly stab Ian Dyer to be Toronto’s First Homicide of 2019. Rather than enforce the laws we have now, we are exploring the option of creating new laws that focus on an identifiable group. A group that is compliant and non-violent. We are exploring new laws that as discussed will have no effect on criminals that have already chosen to live outside the law, and never seem to feel the full penalties that are available, while law abiding gun owners constantly fear the consequences of an expired license or not having a superfluous paper attachment to their license.
I’d like to conclude with a few more questions.
How many of the crime guns in the past 10 years were attributed to their registered owners, or traced back to their registered owners if they were stolen?
How will legislation (the proposed ban) affect those already operating outside our current legislation?
How may handguns that are not already registered are expected to be turned in, in the first 12 months of the ban?
Do you acknowledge that the first firearms to be turned in under a proposed ban would never have been used in a crime?
Who are the perpetrators? Do you feel that the handguns that are being used in crime are one and the same as those being used by licensed owners?
What realistic impact do you expect to have on gun crime by depriving my family and me of our legally purchased and enjoyed firearms?
Where is the commitment to transparency that the Trudeau Liberals campaigned and won on?
What contingencies are in place to deal with the possibility of 80% non-compliance that we see with the Quebec long gun registry? As a society are we ready to convict the owners and support their families with welfare?
What financial analysis has been done to calculate the impact on the Canadian firearms industry, including but not limited to manufacturing, retail, clubs, ranges, and tourism?
After sitting through this meeting, I would like to say thank you to Stephanie Kusie, MP for Midnapore in Calgary who arranged for Mr. Blair to meet with the stakeholders affected by the proposed handgun ban. I’d like to make a comment on the process that I can now claim to be part of. For a meeting that was to have been part of the consultative process to address “a full ban on hand guns and assault weapons in Canada”, I was disappointed in its format and structure. Approximately 20 stakeholders were gathered in a board room for one hour. Not including Mr. Blair, less than 10 people were involved in the discussions that Mr. Blair dominated. Mr. Blair spoke for just over half the time allotted. At no time did I see Mr. Blair take a single note.
This was not a consultation, this was a box to be ticked. Mr. Blair noted several times within the hour that his primary concern was safety. He refused to address sentencing in a meaningful manner and never entered a discussion regarding education or training. When it was brought up that licensed gun owners commit less crime than the general public, it was dismissed.
As a Canadian Citizen, I was promised, and Mr. Blair was charged with openness and transparency in government. This consultation featured neither. Mr. Blair used the term “respect for law abiding gun owners”, but he didn’t even offer the courtesy of listening to them.
|
Linear Mode
