Dennis R. Young just wrote a great article.
Firearms laws control law-abiding gun owners but those too dangerous to own firearms, not so much.
More than two million law-abiding gun owners issued licenses by the RCMP must report their change of address or face criminal charges with sentences of up to two years in jail. So why are the 324,723 convicted criminals (as of 2011) prohibited from owning guns by the courts not forced to do the same? A question that has been asked in Parliament but never really answered. On November 24, 2004, MP Garry Breitkreuz asked Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, “Where is the logic?” She deferred to her Commissioner of Firearms who said, “On the change of address, if someone is prohibited from having a firearm in the country they are no longer effectively covered by the Firearms Act. The Firearms Act only deals with people who own, possess and use firearms. In terms of firearms officers, they would have no authority to collect information from somebody who is not a client of the program.” Anyone with any common sense still wants a clear answer to the question, “Where is the logic in that?”
Surely, those convicted criminals prohibited from owning firearms are the very ones most likely to acquire firearms illegally, most likely to use them to commit crimes and pose the greatest threat to police and public safety. Where’s the evidence that the higher priority for police is to have the current addresses of law-abiding gun owners but not the current addresses of those that have proven themselves by their own criminal acts to be too dangerous to own firearms?
Read the whole thing: It was published in Team CSSA E-News – March 10, 2017
Here are more links to Dennis’s column that has access to all the hyperlinks.
CSSA guest commentary: Liberals’ Gun Control Regime Still Missing the Real Target!
Laws control law-abiding gun owners but those too dangerous to own firearms, not so much.
Dennis urges going to the CSSA website to respond to their weekly polling question: