Column: Gun registry costly undertaking with little results

Column: Gun registry costly undertaking with little results
Date: Jul 14, 2006 11:36 AM
PUBLICATION: Red Deer Advocate
DATE: 2006.07.13
SECTION: Current
PAGE: C2
COLUMN: Outdoors
BYLINE: Scammell, Bob
WORD COUNT: 808

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Gun registry costly undertaking with little results

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

A man should have an epiphany occasionally on Canada Day.

This year I suddenly understood that the only people who could possibly
have given us our firearms registry are people who knew absolutely
nothing about firearms and firearm owners, and who had completely
forgotten that The Constitution Act, the old BNA Act, is still the law
of the land.

Much of that insight, strangely, came from mulling over a couple of
pieces, in the June 20 Globe and Mail, of all liberal places, actually
making the case for scrapping the registry.

The lead editorial, titled The long gun registry is ripe for
dismantling, contained this startling gem: "As Public Safety Minister
Stockwell Day noted yesterday when he introduced his bill (to end the
registry), it was always fanciful to think that tracking down,
describing and registering every duck rifle and gopher gun in the
country was going to make a dent in gun crime."

One can only hope this is simply an ignorant editorial writer putting
ignorant words in Mr. Day's mouth and that the minister, at least, knows
the difference between a rifle and a (shot)gun and that it is illegal to
shoot ducks with the former and stupid, expensive overkill to shoot
gophers with a shotgun.

But the major food for thought came from a story, "Up in arms over
long-gun registration," by Gloria Galloway, from Ottawa: "(The Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police) insist (the registry) is a valuable
tool for preparing officers to enter dangerous situations - although
they have difficulty providing examples of instances in which it has
solved crimes or helped save lives."

Anyone who follows gun atrocities in this country will not have much
trouble providing examples to the contrary, and worse. Take, for one
horrible example, James Rosko's Mayerthorpe massacre. In writing what
needs saying here, I am not for a moment being callous about the tragic
loss of young lives and the devastating effect that must have on their
loved ones.

But, as with most of these firearms-related atrocities, we never seem to
be informed if the firearms were registered, or if the perpetrator was
licensed to possess or acquire them. With his criminal record, we like
to think that Rosko would never have been granted a licence to possess
or acquire firearms, even if he had taken and passed the mandatory
firearms safety course and stored his arsenal safely, as opposed to
hiding them.

Surely the RCMP did not check the registry and, finding nothing, assume
Rosko was no threat? Hundreds of thousands of Canadian firearms owners
and their firearms are not to be found in the registry, including
thousands "in limbo" who sent in their applications and never heard
back. How does the registry help?

With Rosko, the police knew or ought to have known from common knowledge
in the community that they were dealing with a heavily-armed, violent
psychopath with a long criminal record, and who hated the police, to
boot.

Yet, somehow, policemen got gunned down like so many sitting ducks in a
shooting gallery. How did the registry save lives?

Then there is the case of the bug-eyed psychopath in Quebec, known to be
violent, who was forbidden by court order from possessing firearms, who
later had his firearms restored to him by a judge so he could go hunting
in the fall.

In came another complaint, a female officer responded, knocked on
psycho's door and was shot dead through it. What could the registry have
told the police that they didn't already know?

Obviously none of us, and particularly the police, are getting our
money's worth from our ruinously expensive firearms registry. To its
credit, the Harper government seems determined to rid us of this
money-eating white elephant, but faces political problems in Ontario and
Quebec where people seem to want to keep on feeding the beast, no matter
what.

Under The Constitution Act, property and civil rights in a province are
a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Thus, I have always maintained the Supreme Court of Canada, had it been
shooting with a full magazine, should have struck down the registry as
an incursion into exclusive provincial jurisdiction, particularly when
it has never been shown anywhere that registering firearms has any
significant effect in true gun control and public safety. If there
really are provinces that wish to go on registering firearms, then the
feds should give their blessing.

Download whatever provincial records are salvageable from that wonky
federal firearms computer to each province that wants to carry on, maybe
give each one $2 million, the estimated cost way back when of running
the federal registry.

Then let the rest of the country get on with spending the big savings on
what does do some good: background checks, training and licensing of
those who wish to possess and acquire firearms and catching and
punishing those who do not comply, or misuse firearms. Bob Scammell is a
Red Deer lawyer and an award-winning outdoors freelance writer.