The
most important work to replace the previous Liberal government's
failed C-68 gun control system has not ended. With the election of a
Conservative government in January, 2006, in many ways it has just
begun.
In
May we saw the Auditor General release another report on the firearms
registry program. Auditor General Sheila Fraser reported that the
former Liberal government misinformed Parliament about tens of
millions of dollars in overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre.
She also told us that the latest version of the planned computerized
firearm registry system is three years overdue and so far has cost
$90 million, three times more than expected.
The
firearms community has already won a very important victory here,
even as we wait for the actual replacement of the Liberal gun control
system. It's beyond question that the Auditor General's 2002 and 2006
reports have given the Conservatives the moral authority to move
forward toward replacing it through new legislation. We are awaiting
legislation that addresses both legitimate concerns for public safety
and the rights of Canada's firearms community.
Worldwide
experience has shown that severe firearms laws directed at
law-abiding users does not help to create safer societies. The
Conservative government seems to understand that. The National
Firearms Association will continue to remind them of that fact.
Our
new Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, has said that he wants
to have replacement legislation tabled in the House of Commons before
the end of June. While the Liberal gun control system has now been
thoroughly discredited in the public mind and in the media, it still
has a few fanatical supporters. Remember the title of my previous
column, "Nothing Dies Harder Than A Bad Idea"? While the
Liberal system is now widely recognized as a "bad idea," it
still has its adherents.
There
are still many who have an ideological stake in the continuing of the
previous Liberal government's domestic firearms agenda. The Coalition
for Gun Control is now pulling out all stops and calling in all
favours to try to prevent our new government from moving forward with
its plan to reform firearms control laws.
It
is curious. The C-68 gun control system supporters admit the
scandalous misuse of public funds that have been the hallmark of its
existence. However, the supporters seem to feel that the fraud and
institutionalized failure that is so fundamentally associated with
the C-68 gun control system can somehow be divorced from it. They
make calls to "clean up" and "improve" the
registry. This is high comedy. A good analogy would be trying to save
a home with a leaky roof and a rotten foundation. A home built by a
shady contractor from substandard materials and infested with
carpenter ants. One that has been built on a earthquake fault line.
At
some point you just have to accept that you have made a mistake and
move on. The Conservatives are at that point, and the Liberal
loyalists are not.
Registry
supporters claim to like the location of their defective house, and
are quite willing to continue demanding that it not be demolished as
a menace to society. In some ways, this is easy to understand. They
do not have to pay for the upkeep and renovation, Canadian taxpayers
do. They do not have to live in that horrible house. Canadian
firearms owners do.
The
National Firearms Association is the only organization in Canada that
has offered a complete alternative to the government, an alternative
that would replace the entire Liberal gun control system. That
alternative is called the Practical Firearms Control System. Some
parts of the firearms community have refrained from supporting this
alternative, or oppose it, in the hope that in the face of the
failure of the Liberal gun control system, firearms laws would just
naturally sag back to some pre-1995 state.
That
is not going to happen, and there is no evidence to suggest that it
should. The firearms community has got to stand up and start taking
some responsibility, or it will be forever at the mercy of
bureaucrats and legislators who have little understanding of the
actual effects of severe firearms laws. Such people do not have the
firearms community's best interests in mind.
Very
early on, the National Firearms Association started making a case to
the firearms owners that they as a community had to become active in
politics and society, or else they would suffer. The prophecy that
the Canadian tradition of firearms ownership will die out is being
actively promoted by the anti-firearms crowd. And they are partly
correct; too many of our firearms clubs, associations, and owners are
literally dying off. Our most traditional male participants are
aging, and being harassed by a hostile legislative and bureaucratic
environment.
The
firearms community has risen to that challenge, and shooting sports
and other facets of the Canadian tradition of firearms ownership and
use are on the rebound in a big way, led by the National Firearms
Association. The pernicious firearms agenda of the previous Liberal
government met the Canadian tradition of stubborn refusal to submit
to or accept misguided authority and direction, and the anti-firearms
forces are in retreat.
In
1995, when it passed, and in 1998, when it came into force, Bill C-68
and the Firearms Act politicized the firearms community as nothing
has ever done before. What started as a grassroots movement for
firearms rights has moved from the gun clubs and ranges into the
halls of Parliament. Now, in 2006, the political nature of the fight
has changed. The firearms community is now a recognized part of the
political landscape of Canada and is deeply involved in the political
process. The National Firearms Association has been pushing for this
for 22 years.
In
past years firearms owners always seemed to be fighting a rear guard
action, while the attacks of those intent on damaging the firearms
community were always successful. That period has ended. We have
successfully elected a firearms-friendly government. We now have the
opportunity to get real and substantive change to the direction of
Canadian firearms laws--but it will require the continued efforts of
firearms owners to effect the changes we want. We, as a community,
have to accept the responsibilities that come with participating in
the mainstream political process.
The
National Firearms Association has long been prepared to do
this--prepared to deal with the legislative issues of the day, always
seeking to educate and inform, but laying out a road map for the
future as well. This is key, because in spite of the philosophical
opinions and political wishes of some, Canada is a firearms culture.
We are a culture of vibrant and diverse activity, with responsible
ownership and widespread legitimate use of firearms. Our nation--and
it really is our nation--seems to be waking up to that fact.