CDR: CA gun registration, Canada, and civil disobedience

[Nomen Nescio]

The upcoming deadline for CA's "Assault Weapon Registration" has weighed
heavily upon my thoughts for some time.  The blank registration form sits
on my desk, staring back at me every time my eyes wander away from the
screen.

Registrant Last Name, Registrant First Name, Registrant Middle Name, DOB,
Sex, Height, Weight, Eyes, Hair, Physical Residence Address, Mailing
Address, CA Driver License or ID Number, Telephone Number, and, of course,
Right Thumbprint.  ("The registrant's right thumbprint impression of
fingerprint identification quality must be provided in the space
indicated. If DOJ identification specialists determine the impression
quality is unacceptable, the application will be returned unprocessed.
Local police and sheriffs' departments provide quality fingerprint
impression services.")

The Fall 2000 issue of the JPFO's Bill of Rights Sentinel contained the
following article on Canada's C-68.  Balancing my own cynicism against
the authors' bit of Pollyannaish rhetoric, it seems there are at least a
few brave Canadians willing to openly thumb their noses at their Firearms
Act on January 1, 2001.

What will happen when January 1, 2001 hits CA?  Probably not much.  I
strongly doubt that even a single individual will be bold enough to
present himself, unarmed, in public (much less his local police station)
and exclaim, "Hear that, CA DOJ?  I tore up your little card and I didn't
turn in my gun!"

Refusal to cooperate with the census seemed almost fashionable this year.
My census form met its untimely demise in my paper shredder.  No doubt
many other forms, both Cypherpunk and Sheeple alike met more creative
ends.

How many Californians have publicly announced their refusal to cooperate
with the fascist Assault Weapon Registration?  How many op-ed pieces have
been written encouraging citizens to "Just Say No" to this precursor to
confiscation?  How many outside the state are wringing their hands in
dismay that their legislatures will soon follow suit?  What sane person
would engage in civil disobedience in this climate of trendy gun-grabbing?  
Likewise, what *fool* would actually register his "assault weapons"?

What to do, what to do...

"Peace where freedom is compromised isn't peace - it's surrender.  In a
compromise between poison and food, the only winner is death."

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

[Bill Of Rights Sentinel, Fall 2000, JPFO, Inc.  www.jpfo.org]

Civil Disobedience in Canada: It Just Happened to Be Guns
	by Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen

	"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is
	unjust...is in reality expressing the highest respect for law...
	We will not obey your evil laws..." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

In a representative government, and in an ideal world, those elected to
public office are expected to act selflessly, and always in the best
interests of their constituents. And they are trusted to do so, until the
evidence of betrayal is undeniable.

Sometimes, that betrayal takes the form of an unjust law, one which is
both dangerous and costly to society. That's exactly what befell Canadians
in 1995 with the passage of C-68, the Act Respecting Firearms and Other
Weapons (generally referred to as simply the "Firearms Act").

As of January 1, 2001, Canadians who currently own a firearm, or who wish
to own one are required to obtain a license from a Chief Firearms Officer.
And although the Canadian government has required registration of handguns
since 1934, as of January 1, 2001 all other firearms lawfully owned must
be accounted for by a registration certificate. By that date, the Canadian
Justice Department will thus possess a registry of all gun-owners and
their guns, if all goes according to plan.

But the result of the Firearms Act has been massive civil disobedience. R.
Bruce Hutton, formerly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP,
Canada's national police force), formed the Law-Abiding Unregistered
Firearms Association (LUFA) in November 1998. Since then, Hutton has been
traveling throughout Canada urging non-compliance with the Firearms Act,
and exhorting fellow gun-owners, "Come to jail with me."

More than twenty thousand Canadian gun-owners had taken Hutton up on his
challenge as of July 15, 2000, openly declaring their intent to disobey
the law by not complying with registration. When gun-owner populations are
compared, that translates to the U.S. equivalent of almost 400,000
American gun-owners, conservatively stated. Hutton's anger has clearly
resonated among fellow Canadians, proving that an ordinary man can make an
extraordinary difference.

When January 1, 2001 rolls around, LUFA's members are prepared to stand
unarmed in front of RCMP offices and submit, as felons, to their 5-year
prison terms. LUFA's projected membership that time will be enough to
overwhelm an already strained Canadian criminal justice system. An
equivalent action by American gun-owners would probably have the same
effect.

Hundreds of thousands of other Canadian gun-owners have made known their
intent to delay registration until the last possible moment. Their forms
will arrive all together in the last few weeks, throwing the entire
bureaucracy into disarray.

On June 15, 2000, Canada's Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
the Firearms Act and finally pushed some Canadians over the brink. The
provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped
both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control
laws -- including the 66-year old handgun registry -- right back into
Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into civil war, one fought
on paper for the time being. Interesting times lie ahead to the North of
us.

Why are our usually obedient neighbors to the North acting out of
character?


C-68: FALSE PROMISE AND LIES

Various rationales have been articulated to explain civil disobedience in
response to the Firearms Act. A good deal of discussion has focused on the
skyrocketing costs of administration. But none of these explanations
account for why Canadian gun-owners are increasingly willing to disobey
their government, and suffer hefty fines and serious jail-time.

The real answer seems to lie in the fact that, although the Firearms Act
mandates firearm registration, it is not "just another" gun-control law,
and the defiance it has elicited is not just about guns.

When it was enacted into law, the Firearms Act did far more than implement
firearm registration. It provided for the confiscation of more than half of
all registered, legally-owned handguns in Canada -- without compensation
-- an action which Canadian gun-owners rightly interpreted as a blatant
disregard for traditional property rights.

The Firearms Act also empowered the government to profoundly infringe upon
rights that all Canadians cherish. According to Canadian Researcher Dr.
Gary Mauser, "these infringements should frighten any civil libertarian.
The Firearms Act expands the grounds for warrantless searches, reduces
restraints on issuing warrants, and requires people to testify against
themselves."

In fact, Dr. Mauser noted, the Firearms Act "vastly extends police powers"
in Canada, and that "such sweeping police powers...authorize police
procedures that [would] violate the US Fourth Amendment's protection
against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment's protection [of] due
process."

During the debate on C-68, and upon its implementation, the Canadian
government made a number of promises and claims. In discussing some of
these (see sidebar [see end]), Canadian journalist Lorne Gunter observed,
"perhaps the Liberals do not have as their ultimate goal the disarming of
the civilian population. But registration would make confiscation easier
by telling the government where all the guns are."

Why all the lies, both to facilitate the passage of C-68, and to
perpetuate the government's false promises?

Addressing the 11th Annual Community Legal Education Associations
conference in January 1996, Senator Sharon Carstairs made a telling
admission when she thought no one else was listening: the Firearms Act was
intended, from the outset, to be integral to her party's plans to "socially
re-engineer Canada", something the Liberal party of Canada has set about
doing for the past 30 years. Disarming the citizenry and creating a
utopian pacifist society is integral to this "social re-engineering".

Wrote Lorne Gunter in a March 14, 1996 column: "...the Liberals knew that
when they promised C-68 would reduce crime, Canadians would naturally
assume the government meant rounding up criminals and throwing them in
jail, preventing murders and holdups... when all along, what the Liberals
really meant was that they believed C-68 would re-engineer Canada (and
especially male gun owners) making its citizens more docile... [But] when
lawmakers trample centuries-old liberties without offering an overwhelming
social good in return...then respect for the law dies and the rule of law
along with it."


SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN OTTAWA

Garry Breitkreuz is a Member of Parliament from the province of
Saskatchewan. He was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons in
1993, and re-elected in 1997. Columnist Peter Worthington of the Sun chain
of newspapers referred to Breitkreuz as "the one-man wrecking crew when it
comes to federal gun registration".

Recounting his earlier experience with the Justice Department concerning a
secret research project designed to evaluate the effects of a restrictive
gun law enacted in 1997, Breitkreuz commented: "This statistical analysis
was supposed to evaluate the effectiveness of [previous] firearms
legislation. After a thirteen month investigation, the Information
Commissioner has confirmed that the government knowingly and without any
authority whatsoever withheld information from Members of Parliament. The
information concerned public safety and was vital to the debate of the
federal gun control legislation (Bill C-68) and yet the Justice Minister
and his officials effectively hid it from the public and Parliament... If
a Member of Parliament can't get information from the government what hope
does the average citizen have?"

Why would the Canadian government keep this information secret?

Could it be that the 1977 law did not work, as advertised, to reduce
violent crime in Canada? And could it be that this information might
jeopardize its agenda now?

Who stands to gain when a government deliberately withholds information
from its own citizens?

In an attempt to understand the practical implementation of C-68, we went
to its actual text. Despite our own familiarity with a wealth of U.S. gun
laws, we found C-68 to be an almost undecipherable maze of words.

One of the documents we received from Breitkreuz's office shed light on
our difficulty. Prepared by the Research Branch of the Library of
Parliament, and dated April 18, 1997, it stated the following:

"...the sheer volume of regulatory authority can make it extremely
difficult for Parliamentary bodies to envisage the final scope of the Act.
OR FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEGISLATION MAY IMPACT
ON THEM. [emphasis ours]. Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, might well be
described as an example of such legislation... The combined effect [of its
provisions] is to invest the Chief Firearms Officer with an extremely
large, if not unprecedented, degree of discretion."

In fact, according to Dave Tomlinson, President of Canada's National
Firearms Association, C-68 allows the government to "legally confiscate
all guns at any time."

Now we also know the answer to the question of why Canadians are acting
out of character: THEY AREN'T! They are beginning to read the "fine print"
of the Firearms Act, and are expressing -- according to Martin Luther
King, Jr. -- the "highest respect for the law", in their own way.


NICS: A BETTER MOUSETRAP?

Contrast the Firearms Act with NICS, our own National Instant Check
System. While Canadians refer to th Firearms Act as outright
registration, American proponents of NICS have painstakingly avoided any
reference to the term, or characterization of NICS as a system of gun or
gun-owner registration.

Yet NICS may more effectively accomplish what the Firearms Act has openly
set out to do -- register law-abiding gun-owners and their guns.

The machinery for registration was set in place by the very design of
NICS: Americans, and the guns they buy, are automatically -- and illegally
-- entered into a Department of Justice database, as an immediate
consequence of the instant check provision required for purchases from
licensed dealers.

Unlike Canada's Firearms Act, however, registration via NICS is essentially
passive on the part of gun-owners. Its architects have cleverly removed
registration as an option from American gun purchasers.

Except for one small detail, that is. The Brady Law's provisions apply
only to sales from licensed dealers, and private gun sales are therefore
currently exempt from "instant-check"-style registration. But private gun
sales account for approximately a third of all gun acquisitions in this
country, which leaves a huge chunk of firearm transfers unaccounted for by
a government paper trail.

The reason then becomes perfectly clear why Bill Clinton and the rest of
America's anti-self-defense politicians have relentlessly pushed for a
background check on ALL private gun transfers, even at gun shows. Witness
the so-called "gun-show loophole" mantra which drones on incessantly from
a biased, firearm-hostile mainstream media.

Now we know exactly what Bill Clinton had in mind when he announced during
his weekly Saturday radio address on February 3, 1999, "No background
check, no gun. No exceptions."

While registration in the U.S. will take longer with NICS than the
published timetable for Canada's Firearm Act, if the "gun-show loophole"
is closed, a more complete listing of gun-owners and their guns will
likely result. The Canadian experience amounts to a crash-course on
registration and confiscation. And it should serve as a wake-up call for
gun-owners here in the States."

----

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Dr. Paul Gallant practices optometry in Wesley Hills, N.Y. Dr. Joanne
Eisen practices dentistry in Old Bethpage, N.Y. Lorne Gunter is a
columnist for the _Edmonton Journal_, one of Canada's largest daily
newspapers. His columns on politics, society, government, the environment,
the law, and economics appear three times a week.

[References omitted]

SIDEBAR: 	LIES MY GOVERNMENT TOLD ME	by Lorne Gunter

Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and
statistics." The Canadian government used all three to ram through its
latest gun controls, which came into effect on December 1, 1998.

Among the lies: federal politicians promised that point-of-sale
registrations, which must now be completed before a buyer may take his
firearm home, would take "only" 10 to 15 minutes over the telephone.

Some have taken weeks, many other three months or more. Those of less than
an hour are exceedingly rare.

The mail-in registration of previously unregistered shotguns and rifles
was to be accomplished on a postcard. The form actually contains 135
Questions and is as complicated as a tax return.

there were the damned lies -- lies the government still refuses to admit
are false. The registry was to cost no more than $85 million over five
years. to date, the government will admit it has registered fewer than
one-in-five gun owners with just five months remaining to the December 31
deadline. And instead of 200 employees, it has over 1,400, including
hundreds of frontline police officers who have been rerouted from
crime-busting to gun registration.

Canadians were assured the registry would not divert funds from other
Police operations. But the Mounties have all but lost their organized
crime and white collar crime divisions, while the registry grows and
grows.

Then there were the statistics. The Department of Justice overestimated
(likely knowingly) the number of gun crimes in the country by nearly
10-fold and exaggerated the cost of treating gunshot wounds by nearly
100-fold to create the appearance of a national emergency.

Even the nation's police chiefs tried to help justify over half of all
guns recovered at cime scenes were long guns. What the chiefs' failed to
mention was that most had been stolen from their lawful owners before
being used in a crime or had not been involved in a crime, merely
recovered at the scene.