Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,920

    The Canadian Right to Bear Arms

    [a couple CGN posts this morning...]

    Quote Originally Posted by demopeng View Post
    "Guns" are not a hobby.
    Bearing arms for defense against fellow man and tyrannical governments is a God given right, which is not currently formally acknowledged by "our" government.
    Quote Originally Posted by 123mars View Post
    There is no such thing as a god (note the lower case). The concept of a god is imaginary so nothing more to say about that. So where does that leave your statement? Relying on unproven concept of a god to try and prove a point just weakens the argument.
    God, in this context, is a philosopher's shorthand for natural law.

    If a dog corners a cat, the cat will defend itself.
    If you corner a skunk, the skunk will defend itself.
    If you take a bear's cubs, the bear will defend its cubs.
    If you are being beaten, your arms will come up to defend yourself by autonomic reflex. You have no control over this, it just happens. You may not be victorious, but you will fight or flight.

    These are natural laws, from which your "Right To Life" arises, which is in our Charter.
    One can deny a person has a "Right To Life" (and several countries have, and then there's genocide) but you may as well deny that Gravity exists. It simply is.

    From that comes "Right To Self Defence" which is ingrained in Canada's Criminal Code and Common Law, which is not in Charter but is nonetheless a thing.

    From those comes the "Right To Bear Arms", again not in Canada's Charter.
    Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation". Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" have been required reading for lawyers (and thus most Parliamentarians) for a couple centuries.

    Neanderthals picked up sticks as clubs, sharpened rocks became swords, then gunpowder then whatever. Statistically a firearm is the only tool for self defence that reduces your harm in a violent encounter, and thus the firearm is the only tool that supports your Right To Self Defence. Militaries across the world know this.
    In R. v. Kerr SCC commented that a person is not expected to fight off an assault with only tooth and nail.

    The USA put theirs into their Constitution. They did that because England (and thus Canadians) had the 'constitutional' Right To Bear Arms so they were adopting that. They did it because the War Of Independence (1776) started when the British tried to seize guns and powder. They did it because they'd successfully fought back using a militia that brought their own personal guns, and without keeping the militia armed they were vulnerable. They did it because Locke was a strong influence on the Founding Fathers. Their Constitution gives their supreme court unlimited power to overrule legislatures in case of conflict.

    England had a Right To Bear Arms, long before the The Bill of Rights 1689. Indeed it was the King's attempt to pass Acts that restricted that right that bore the birth of the codifying of that right in The Bill of Rights 1689. Unlike Canada and the USA, England doesn't actually have a Constitution. They have a handful of Bills that are traditionally viewed as 'constitutional'. But they have a 'supremacy of parliament' which is unlimited power, and so they can revoke any Bill at any time. Since they don't have a constitution, their supreme court is completely subservient to the supremacy of parliament. This has lots of side effects, with parliament and the Home Office infringing not only on the Right To Bear Arms, but also the Right To Free Speech, and other Rights. Essentially English citizens have no Rights, except those privileges which parliament hasn't taken from them.

    Canada is a mix between the two. We have a Charter which gives power to our supreme court, but we have the notwithstanding clause so that the supremacy of parliaments can dismiss the Charter. In the case of the Right To Bear Arms, as a side effect of English tradition, The Bill Of Rights 1689, the English Right To Bear Arms, the Right To Bear Arms in Canada has been expressed in Parliament several times throughout Canada's history as a reason not to enact, or not to go too far, with gun control. The first time this was completely thrown to the wind was 1995's C68 Firearms Act, which enabled licencing, which in turn effectively made it a privilege although that was uncertain at the time if that would hold.

    C68 was challenged, eventually making it to our supreme court in Firearms Act Reference 2000. When it was argued in the lower courts (superior court, appellant court), that lawyer knew the Right To Bear Arms history and was prepared to argue it. But at the supreme court, he was replaced by an older lawyer who had argued before the supreme court before, and that lawyer did not know the Right To Bear Arms arguments and never raised them although questions asked by supreme court justices could have had those answers. Indeed, even today, there are arguments of multiple constitutional rights violations of the Firearms Act that were not argued in 2000, and there are Right To Bear Arms arguments that have been to court and not properly argued (Montague's attempt was not optimal. Dr. Edward B. Hudson's was pretty good, but was after R. v. Wiles 2005 so it was crushed)

    Although several court cases have correctly stated that the Right To Bear Arms is not in the Charter,
    in R. v. Wiles 2005, the supreme court for apparently no good reason, just threw it out there that firearms ownership is a privilege.


    Quote Originally Posted by 123mars View Post
    The right to bear arms is part of tradition and British common law, that is it. It can be taken away so it has to be fought for. It is not enshrined in any [Canadian] constitution or charter. Trudeau the elder made sure of that.
    Yep.

    The Right To Bear Arms is a Quashed Right.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 10-23-2019 at 07:48 AM.

  2. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By RangeBob

    3MTA3 (10-23-2019), Doug_M (10-23-2019), IJ22 (10-23-2019), Scoutertracker (10-23-2019)

  3. #2
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,920
    copied from elsewhere, circa 2009

    A Brief History of British Gun Control

    In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

    In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.

    In 1936 short barrelled shotguns (such as shot pistols used for ratting) and fully automatic firearms were outlawed. Why? Not because such firearms were ever misused but because the government dictated that civilians had "no legitimate reason" for owning them. Where have we heard that before! Another slide down the slippery slope. The reasoning has now changed from the government NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS to the people NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, to a government TELLING them that there was NO ACCEPTABLE REASON.

    The English Bill of Rights states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law" Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the laws of England said, "The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute IW & M ft.2c.2 and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". I wonder what happened to "the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation" (from domestic criminals and out of control governments). Have not the "sanctions of society and laws" been shown "insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"?

    In 1936 the government added a "safe storage" requirement on the owners of handguns and rifles to "prevent the guns falling into the wrong hands" Where have we heard that one before, and how often do the British police use that particular requirement to harass what is left of the British gun owning community?

    As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.

    In 1946 "self defence" was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.

    In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defence was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great "crime control" soundbites to the police and press.

    In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic... handgun used... shotguns licensed for the first time in British history.

    In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure "safe storage" of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman's home at any time of day or night without a warrant.

    In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.

    In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show "good reason" for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.

    In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defence and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.

    In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all "realistic" toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. "Violent crime reduction" was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller.

    In 2009 talks with the British government were started to devolve airgun laws to the Scottish parliament.

  4. #3
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,920
    A Brief History of Canadian Gun Control
    at
    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/p...st/con-eng.htm

  5. #4
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    10,324
    A (Not So) Brief History of Gun Control in Canada, 1867 to 1945
    https://cssa-cila.org/rights/a-brief...-1867-to-1945/

    For Their Own Good, Part I - Firearm Control In Canada 1867-1945
    https://cssa-cila.org/wp-content-css..._1867-1945.pdf

    For Their Own Good, Part II - Firearm Control In Canada 1946-1977
    https://cssa-cila.org/wp-content-css...46_to_1977.pdf
    Last edited by awndray; 10-23-2019 at 07:17 AM.

  6. #5
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,920
    Quote Originally Posted by awndray View Post
    A Brief History of Gun Control in Canada, 1867 to 1945
    ...


    I was thinking of those. And I've read them, and occasionally reference them.
    But I'm not convinced they deserve the epithet "Brief".

  7. #6
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    10,324
    True. Fixed.

  8. #7
    Senior Member 3MTA3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    45.635887,-78.367367
    Posts
    3,091
    Rights are not bestowed by government as the Left believes, rather they exist, but can be denied by tyrants.
    "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.." - George Orwell
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the younger
    FTrudeau

  9. The Following 7 Users Like This Post By 3MTA3

    50 B.M.G. (10-23-2019), Curt (11-05-2019), killer kane (10-23-2019), shortandlong (11-03-2019), Smc (11-03-2019), spider69 (10-23-2019), Zinilin (10-24-2019)

  10. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Burlington, Ontario
    Posts
    1,124
    Having an democratically elected government bestow "privileges" on the people that it serves, is akin to your hired gardener claiming that walking on your own lawn is a privilege and one that only he can grant you!
    We were told he wasn't ready, now we know he will never be!
    Rewarding 4 years of incompetence and corruption with 4 more years, says a lot about our electorate.

  11. #9
    The Gunsmithing Moderator blacksmithden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    I live among the creatures of the night (Edmonton)
    Posts
    15,775
    The reason the US exists as it does today is because the government of the day tried to force it's will onto it's citizens. They fought back and won. The reason Canada exists as it does today is because we didn't.
    GOC moderator
    Dealer/co-founder/co-owner of Tundra Supply Ltd.
    www.tundrasupply.ca
    The High River Gun Grab - NEVER FORGET !!!!
    Feb 26 2014 - Swiss Arms prohibition and ordered confiscation by the RCMP - NEVER FORGET !!!!!

  12. The Following 8 Users Like This Post By blacksmithden

    50 B.M.G. (10-23-2019), Deezel (10-23-2019), hawk-i (10-24-2019), killer kane (10-23-2019), Magi (10-23-2019), shortandlong (10-23-2019), Smc (10-25-2019), Swingerguy (10-23-2019)

  13. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SWOntario
    Posts
    2,415
    "...the "Right To Bear Arms", again not in Canada's Charter..." It has nothing to do with The Charter. It has to do with Trudeau the Elder's Constitution. Both property rights and self defence were specifically left out. Along with the "Notwithstanding clause" to get Quebec to agree to it. The Right To Bear Arms is Constitutionally guaranteed, Stateside.
    "...the U.S. exists as it does today is because..." That has nothing to do with arms. It has to do with taxation without representation in British Parliament.
    "...War Of Independence (1776)..." The American Rebellion you mean. It's only a "War Of Independence", Stateside. No other English colony required one either.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •