The idea that privilege is or should be the pre-eminent force in our society is an assumed dogma, and one that is frequently encountered in this country. Canadians are constantly hearing from many sources that "gun ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right".
There could be no clearer expression of the Doctrine of Privilege.
However pleasing this mantra may be to those who believe in it and who may wish to hear it, repeating it over and over does nothing to convince those who do not share it.
From philosophy comes ideology; from ideology, doctrine; doctrine, plans; and plans to action.
All we have seen are the plans, as revealed in C-68. Where did they originate? What is the audit trail? What steps has the government taken to describe the philosophy, ideology and doctrine behind this great undertaking to recast our society?
To compensate for the apparent vacuum, the following is offered as a reconstruction from the details contained in C-68 of the fundamentals that underlay it. The approach is not entirely adequate. It seems clear that a doctrine initially should be developed and explained by those who subscribe to it, not the opposition. Canadians deserve the government version. If it has been denied, it is because of the negligence of those in government whose job it was to provide it. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust the present government in whatever capacity. The following provides, at least, the advantage of an independent and critical assessment.
As can best be determined from the entrails of C-68, the Doctrine of Privilege as it is being implemented in Canada may be defined as: 1. the exclusive right of government to hold to itself all rights of ownership, possession, and use of all firearms and any other thing or things that may be proscribed by government. 2. the right of government under pain of law to extinguish and to deny any and all such rights to citizens. 3. the right of government to permit citizens to use and to have in their possession firearms and other designated things, but only as delegated privileges to be granted or revoked at the pleasure of government.
Just how substantial is this Doctrine? How well does it stand on its own, and how does it fare in comparison to the Doctrine of Rights?
Privileged systems depend for their existence on the ability of the privileged groups to hold as many rights as possible to themselves, to limit or to extinguish the rights of other groups, to dispense privilege to the other groups in lieu of rights, and to withhold or revoke privileges as a means to control the society.
In this respect, the system of privilege under C-68 lays the foundation for the most extreme form of privileged society, in that the Canadian government claims to hold to itself the exclusive and absolute right of arms. At the same time, the government's right to extinguish and the government's right to dispense apply to all other groups in Canada (ie. all citizens). In this, the federal government has become the one and only group in Canada that is truly privileged by right, with all other groups privileged by dispensation only, if at all.
Equally extreme is that the government's right to extinguish and its right to dispense are defined in such detailed and comprehensive articles in the law, that they too must be considered as absolute rights on par and equal to the first right, the absolute right of arms.
The following examines these three rights as they are implicitly claimed by the federal government in C-68. The four criteria previously applied to the citizen's right to arms are used. The objective is to assess the legitimacy of the government's claim, and to make such a case as might be argued on behalf of the Doctrine of Privilege against the Doctrine of Rights.
A claim could be made that the Doctrine of Privilege hinges on the historical right of Canadians to be free from the presence of arms everywhere, in their homes, on the streets and in public places. This agreeable state of affairs concerning the apparent freedom from the presence of guns almost certainly exists and has existed in modern historical times almost everywhere in Canada, especially in the urban areas - but only for those not looking for arms or who do not have them.
The reality in Canada is that guns have always exerted a subtle but pervasive presence in this country, a fact well known to those who have them and to those who know what to look for and where to look, but almost never is this apparent to those who don't. In this respect, the custom and familiarity of a gun-free Canada is a common perception, and a happy one which it would be best to leave undisturbed if indeed it gives comfort to so many.
As a right, however, a gun-free environment has little or no basis in fact or reality in this country, but only in the illusion that flows from an agreeable and charming naivete, in which can be found no fault.
In addition, one must consider that if the right of government to establish a gun-free environment were to be articulated in law, the usual number of criminals and all of the police would surely carry arms in public places the same as before, and contrary to the right. In this respect the right would change nothing between the former circumstances and the new. Nor would the incidence of crime be reduced, but rather encouraged by the assurance of a disarmed citizenry in all places.
Also, it is a fact and feature of Canadian life that the guns of all the millions of legitimate owners are almost never seen by those who would object to them, unless they go out of their way to look. Here again, there would be almost no change in the common perception of Canadians between the former circumstance and the new, if the government acquired the right to enforce a gun-free environment. The guns of law-abiding citizens are not now seen during the course of the everyday lives of Canadians who do not actively set out to find and observe those guns, nor would they be seen then.
Overall, the result of government to enforce a gun-free environment would change neither the reality nor the perception that exists in Canadian society between the circumstances we have now and the circumstances we would have then; except for the general encouragement of crime and the great harm done to the firearms community.
There is of course, the related issue as to whether or not the right to a gun-free environment would reduce the incidence of domestic killings, firearms injury, accidental death and suicide. This whole subject is too complex to even attempt in so short a space, except to say that the intuitive answer is that all or most of these things would surely be reduced.
The problem with the intuitive approach is that the great preponderance of evidence to be found in the many credible studies and examples that are available, convincingly demonstrate that uninformed intuitive thinking almost invariably leads to a wrong and counterproductive conclusion in respect of firearms. The serious literature also explains why this is so.
The question that lingers, is that if the three implied rights of government would bring about so much harm and so little benefit to society even when implemented in the extreme case of an enforced gun-free environment, what possible benefit could these rights bestow on society if implemented to any lesser degree?
So much the better then, that these rights should not be implemented at all, and do no harm to anyone.
Better yet, they should not be recognized to exist.
On balance, it would seem that there is little or no historical or factual basis or sociological benefit to substantiate a right of government in Canada to dispense firearms privileges in the context of an enforced gun- free environment, or in the context of any lesser form of restricted environment. Nor would there likely be any significant alteration to or advantage in the everyday lives and perceptions of Canadians that would accrue from such a right; except for the general encouragement of crime and the unjustified encroachment on the citizen's right to arms.
That some societal controls are necessary goes without saying. However, such simple controls as may be necessary relate to the problems of access, safety and training. These controls do not necessarily need to be articulated in law, and even less so in the criminal law. Also, the need for simple but effective sanctions in the criminal law to deter the general carriage and use of any weapon in the commission of a crime should be self evident. But all of this seems lost to the self-serving ideologues in government who seek only to destroy the rights of citizens and punish the firearms community.
What value does the government place on its soon-to-be-proclaimed right to extinguish the firearms rights of Canadians? Is this claim being challenged? Obviously so. Is the government prepared to defend its claim? Yes it is. To what extent, we shall see. On every occasion so far, the government has demonstrated a dogged determination to go to the wall on every gun issue. It is reasonable to conclude that the government places a high value on its claim to rights, and is committed to defend them. Behind it stand the usual organs of state power with all of their considerable strength, but also weaknesses.
The next question to settle on behalf of the government's case would be to determine whether or not government has the right to claim sole proprietorship over all firearms and all matters relating to firearms as would be required to extinguish the citizen's right to arms. Next, does the federal government have the exclusive right to dispense whatever firearms privileges they wish, as they wish, whenever they wish, and to whomever they see fit?
On what basis does the government assume these rights? We have not been told. One might imagine the Divine Right of Kings, or the debasing philosophy of Hobbes. Or maybe the writings of Marx, Engels, or Lenin. By no means can the works of Nietzsche and Hitler be eliminated.
In the final analysis, it may be none of these. The shallow reality as we have recently discovered, is that the agenda on this most profound of national issues may not be driven by the philosophy of Lenin, but Lennon.
Which may help to explain the relative poverty of the material in this section. Can it be true that the laws of Canada are being formulated from ethereal New Age mush?
It is contingent upon any prudent, honest and trustworthy government to articulate a claim to rights before implementing laws that gives force and effect to those rights. In this, the federal government has been grossly negligent, causing great confusion, and planting widespread suspicion of an operative and hidden agenda very much along the lines described in these pages.
What basis is there in law to support the government's claim to rights? To begin, there is the great void in Canadian statute law concerning the citizen's right to arms. If one ignores the common law, and the inheritance of the common law as guaranteed in the constitution, then it could be claimed that there is no legal articulation of the citizen's right to arms anywhere in Canada. Overlooking the constitution, that is. And overlooking the common law. And overlooking certain Treaty entitlements of certain aboriginal nations.
But if one is prepared to do all that, then it might be arguable that all the government is doing is to create a new statute to fill the void.
From that leap of faith, there is no question that the government by statute is prepared to recognize and to uphold its self-declared absolute right of arms, and its right to extinguish the citizen's right to arms and its right to dispense all privilege of arms. C-68 says it all.
First of all, C-68 invests the federal government with the absolute right of arms in a most complete and detailed manner.
The Act is also written in a way that assumes the citizen's right to arms does not exist, and makes no mention of it.
The Act then clearly establishes the government's right to extinguish the rights of citizens through the device of an imposing body of registration offences covering all firearms and all persons found to have or known to have firearms in their possession.
The Act then goes on to establish the registration system as another powerful device to control the process of extinguishment, and afterwards to control the dispensation of privilege.
Legally, it is very important for gun owners to know that the moment of truth is at the point of registration and not the point of subsequent restrictions or confiscation. It is at the precise moment of registration that all control and all proprietary rights pass from the citizen to the government, except for those that may be returned in privilege.
Overall then, it has to be recognized that the Doctrine of Privilege is powerfully established and greatly enhanced in a most complete and convincing manner by C-68. But only in terms of statute law; and only if the question of constitutionality and the common law are set aside.
(to be continued August 1995: Part 3 of 3 - BATTLE OF TITANS)