Should be easy, since they know where they are
Paul Martin will today propose a ban on most handguns in Canada, CanWest News Service has learned.
Sources say the Prime Minister will make the election campaign announcement this morning in Toronto, where deaths due to gun violence have jumped significantly this year.
There will be some exemptions, including maintaining the right for police to carry handguns. The Prime Minister is also expected to announce a significant increase in resources for police to deal with the ban.
The Liberals say the thinking behind this crime strategy is that if no one is allowed to have a handgun in Canada, policing authorities will be in a better position to act on anyone who has a handgun or attempts to transport or sell a handgun.
The announcement will include the banning of all registered handguns in Canada. However, sources say special arrangements will be made for gun collectors.
[snip]
The handgun ban would seem to have similarities with the national firearms registry, a Liberal initiative under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. The firearms registry is supported by residents and police forces in urban centres, where illegal weapons are a serious concern, but it has been harshly criticized in rural areas and other places where recreational gun use is common. Critics charge that forcing law-abiding citizens to register their hunting rifles does little to remove illegal handguns from urban streets.
And while sources say the Liberals will present the handgun ban as an attempt to stifle the supply of handguns in Canada — particularly guns brought into the country illegally and those sold on the black market — critics will say the guns used in most violent crimes are already illegal, so a ban would do little.
And they have a registry to find them.
Update: David Kopel has more, noting:
On August 26, 2004, Canada’s Commissioner of Firearms spoke at the annual meeting of the Canadian Professional Police Association. He declared: “For years, firearm owners have expressed fears regarding the confiscation of firearms. This is a concern I heard loud and clear when we held consultations with firearms organizations last fall. But, in fact, those fears have not materialized.”
December 8th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Registration always leads to confiscation.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
That’s right! Why, just yesterday the government came and took my car from me.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
How did I know someone was going to say that? The article was about gun registration and I was refering to that.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Cars are confiscated all the time. Often this happens because of vehicle-related offenses, usually after a couple of DUIs. However, in some states it happens with just two red-light camera violations, whether or not you were driving the car at the time (cite: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/394.asp). You can argue that this is justified, but the point remains — if your car is involved in an offense that is completely unrelated to you and out of your control, it’s gone. The courts and police can mail you a red-light-camera ticket and ultimately come to confiscate your car because they know where you live because you have dutifully registered your vehicle and display the license plates.
There are plenty of other examples. Owe taxes you cannot repay? Involved in a drug-related offense? Owe back alimony? Your vehicle can be confiscated. (Unless, of course, you are among the privileged (cite: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/384.asp).)
There’s also the matter of the constitution explicitly singling out firearms ownership (and perhaps carry, too) as a protected right. No other property is afforded this protection.
I would be glad to know of cases in which government registration of property did not lead to (increased) taxes on that property and/or outright confiscation.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
See, had you been more specific, or even said “often” rather than “always,” you probably would have been okay. And in many of Ben’s examples, the confiscation would occur irrespective of registration.
But as it is, all I need to do is produce one person who owns a registered firearm and hasn’t had it confiscated, and the “point” is disproved.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
I’m shocked, shocked! that such a thing could happen in Canada.
:p
Stupid country, see why I left and will never go back.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Let me guess tgirsch, you are a lawyer? Am I right?
Anyway, my point isn’t refuted if I am refering to a general societal tread rather than on an individual basis. The individual may not have his registered firearms confiscated, but it seems that invariably once a society decides to register firearms, they later on decide to confiscate the ones they previously registered. This has happened in England, Australia and now it seems Canada. Maybe “always” has not completely come to pass everywhere guns are registered at this point in time, but give those places time. They will sooner or later confiscate all of those firearms on their registration roles.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
tgirsh, you have it backwards. Pointing at registred firearms that are not being confiscated is not proof that registration does not lead of confiscation. Similarly, examples of confiscation absent registration is not proof that confiscation requires registration. The point is that registration is a necessary condition for confiscation.
I still am eager to be furnished with example of .gov registration of private property that failed to lead to taxation and/or seizure down the road.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Yosemite:
Nope, not a lawyer. 🙂 The biggest problem was with your use of “always.” Sure, registration has led to confiscation in many places, but in other places, it hasn’t. The more honest way to state the objection is not that “registration always leads to confiscation,” but that registration makes confiscation somewhat easier, should society decide confiscation is prudent. And this is every bit as true with cars and computer software and anything else as it is with firearms. It’s just that since the stated purpose of most firearms is inherently violent, society is far more likely to demand confiscation of these than of cars or computer software or anything else.
What your fears tell me, frankly, is that you expect to lose the debate. You don’t have confidence that you can convince the general population that gun ownership is a good thing (or, at least, not a bad thing), such that the public turning against you (the gun owner) is inevitable. And that, to me, seems like a pessimistic attitude.
Ben:
By your standard, what Yosemite said can never be disproved. We could go two millennia without gun confiscation, and his statement still “could” be true, because they could come and take the guns “tomorrow.” I was limiting the scope to something more practical. All I need is an example of somebody who registers their firearm, and lives a long and productive life, and goes to the grave without ever having their firearm confiscated, and Sam’s point is essentially disproved.
And I’d argue that registration isn’t necessary for confiscation, although it does make things a whole lot easier.
Last, when did taxation enter the equation? That was never part of the argument. I suspect you injected taxation, because without it, your last sentence would have been silly, since there are lots of examples of private property registration that haven’t led to widespread seizure. So you introduce “taxation” to the picture, but that makes you look nearly as silly, since very few would seriously argue that mild-to-moderate taxation is anywhere near in the same ballpark as seizure.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Registration doesn’t lead to confiscation. Registration and confiscation ar eboth systoms of the same idea: guns are bad, or more trouble than they are worth, and need special controls. If the populous believes that, then stopiing registration will not stop confiscation. It might slow done the physical process, but that’s about all it will do. And that is only meaningful if you are willing to go into armed revolt and have the 101st airborne turn you into a grease spot.
Conversley, if the populous never believes that certian weapons are so much trouble or so bad that they should be removed, registration will never lead to confiscation. There is no casue and effect — they just represesnt different degrees of the same notion.