Patrick Walsh

Article, Articles, Field Findings

Outdoors with Editor-in-Chief & Brand Manager Patrick Walsh

About Patrick Walsh »Patrick Walsh

With the long-gun registry soon gone, is it time to take aim at firearm licences?

October 26th, 2011 at 1:41 pm

shotgun

4 comments

Now that the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, or Bill C-19, is before the House of Commons and all but certain to pass into law, should the shooting sports community take aim at also getting rid of non-restricted gun licences for individuals? The rumblings are out there, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation making the most noise. It’s not a campaign I would encourage.

When people who don’t hunt or own firearms ask me why I support the end of the long-gun registry, one of the key reasons I cite is that it’s redundant and, as such, a huge waste of taxpayer coin that could otherwise go toward actually combating crime. Redundant how so? Simply, in order to possess a firearm, you must already hold a valid firearms licence. To then insist that a licensed individual must additionally register each and every shotgun and rifle he or she owns is nonsensical.

I say nonsensical because one of the chief arguments in support of the $2-billion registry is that police officers routinely consult it before responding to 911 calls at private residences. In short, the cops want to know if there are guns on the premises before they go through the door. Two things here. One, all the police need to know is if there is a licensed individual on the premises; if yes, chances are the person owns at least one firearm. Duh. Secondly, as a detective friend once told me, police should attend any call thinking there may be firearms present—whether or not the listed residents are licensed gun owners. Indeed, the vast majority of bad guys—gang members and the like—are not licensed gun owners (let alone adherents to the doomed registry).

How then the registry was supposed to combat gun crime is beyond me. Of course, registry proponents point to statistics showing that homicides committed with the use of long guns have dropped some 52 per cent since the registry became law in 1995. (The Toronto Star has compiled an inventory of stats sure to be brought forward by the opposition during debate on Bill C-19.) What’s missing here, though, is any corollary evidence linking the registry to the decline. But I digress.

My point here is that, yes, let’s get rid of the registry. But to those in the who are now also calling for an end to the licensing of individuals, please, leave it alone. All that hunters and rural folk have ever asked for is to get rid of the pernicious registry. Few question the need for the proper safety training and attendant licensing of individuals who wish to use or possess firearms—we’ve had that mandated by federal statute since 1991. It’s just common sense, after all.

The way I see it, to now push for the dismantling of individual licensing is only sure to garner immense public backlash. No, for those of us who use firearms to shoot targets, hunt or protect farmland from vermin, our job now is to demonstrate what we have known all along: that the responsible use of firearms is no threat to the public.

Indeed, Canada’s gun control regime remains robust, even without the registry. Consider the highlights of Bill C-19, as listed on the Public Safety Canada website:

  • Repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (long-guns);
  • Provide for the destruction of all records pertaining to the registration of long-guns currently contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers; and
  • Maintain controls over restricted and prohibited firearms.
  • Under the proposed reforms, firearms owners will still require a valid firearm licence to purchase or possess firearms and to purchase ammunition. They will also be required to undergo police background checks, pass a firearms safety training course and comply with firearms safe storage and transportation requirements.
  • In addition, individuals will continue to be required to register prohibited and restricted firearms, such as handguns.

Strict? Viewed through the lens of the American firearms experience, no doubt. But for me, to be able to continue to freely tote my shotgun afield, it’s a relatively small—and easy—price to pay. Besides, would you like to share the forest with someone who’s never been properly trained in the safe use of a firearm? I know I wouldn’t.


4 comments

Sort order:

Oldest Newest

ufo

Jan. 31, 2013

8:30 pm

The more onerous hoops that one has to jump through in order to obtain the right to keep firearms in Canada vs the US is one of the main reasons why Canada has roughly half as many murders per 100,000 of population per year as the US. It makes perfect sense to require proof that you are a responsible potential (or actual) gun owner before you are allowed to legally own firearms. You need to provide similar proof re driving a car before getting a driver's license. You also need to renew your driver's license every 5 years. Are guns in the hands of nutjobs or idiots any less dangerous than cars? I don't think so. Can a person's mental status change over any given 5 year period? Obviously. The LGR may not have been the best solution, but it was a step in the right direction. Sure it is a hassle for farmers and hunters. Tough. It is a hassle for city dwellers to get and renew their drivers' licenses and car insurance and registrations as well. As a resident of the wilds of Surrey, BC, I would like to see greater police powers to search for and seize based on profiling of "known to police" individuals -- guns belonging to bikers and other drug gangs, along with stiff mandatory sentences for persons found to be in possession of illegal and/or unregistered firearms. That would go a long way to making everyone safer.


bawbo44@yahoo.com

bawbo44

Feb. 4, 2012

8:27 am

In response to Monica. When the L.G.R. is abolished, you will not be able to purchase a long gun without a ( P.A.L.) POSSESSION AQUISITION LICENSE . IN ORDER TO HOLD THIS LICENSE, YOU MUST FIRST TAKE A SAFETY COURSE AS WELL AS SAFE HUNTING COURSE. YOU THEN HAVETO PASS AN EXAM. ONE EXAM IS FOR THE HUNTER SAFETY COURSE, THE OTHER IS FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF FIREARMS.


ghostofbonzo

Dec. 5, 2011

7:10 pm

This article says it all. The suggestion that gun owners now go after the formal PAL as the next step in reducing government interference in legal firearms ownership, is ludicrous, and as the authour suggests, I believe the backlash from all sides of the LGR argument would be immense. I agree with the writer, that the requirements to acquire a PAL are a necessary evil, in spite of the argument that responsible gun ownership is based largely on common sense when it comes to safety. No matter whether you were born with a 12ga in your hands or not, the formal safety training is definitely worth the hassle.


missmartiny1@live.com

monicawesley

Oct. 31, 2011

2:29 am

concern. This stem to philosophical discrepancies on gun control policy between and among Canada's political parties, and issues related to the cost of program. Moreover, since the existence of the law, there has been an increase proportion reduction in homicides by long guns. However, the Canada's much criticized long-gun registry is now under attack. Media editorials have called the registry a "billion waste" and "an insult to law abiding citizens". Therefore, Canada is set to abolish the national long-gun registry. I bet there are motley reactions about this. If the Conservative party has its way, the national long-gun registry will be a thing of the past. Long guns, which include rifles and shotguns, would call for background check and instruction, but not registration.


You need to be logged in or a registered user to leave a comment

Log in  |  Register


Browse by Tags


POLL

How many different species do you hunt (both birds and mammals)?

Loading ... Loading ...
outdoorcanada.ca is part of the Cottage Life Network