Those who have been lobbying against the proposed amendments to the federal government’s Bill C-21 handgun ban received some good news late last week, when the feds announced it was scrapping the baffling changes.
The amendment would have added even more firearms to the list of those banned in Canada, making criminals out of many more Canadians. And it would have enshrined the changes within the Criminal Code, which would have made it much more difficult for future governments to change.
Granted, there were a lot of people opposed to Bill C-21, too, and they would want to see that legislation scrapped, too, but when it comes to dealing with the feds, you have to take every victory you can get.
The amendments to Bill C-21 seemed doomed from the start. Not only was it viewed by many as onerous and overbearing, but the federal government found itself finetuning the changes.
It seemed lost on certain people within the federal government that far more Canadians will use a firearm as a tool than as a weapon on a daily basis.
You have to wonder how much taxpayer money was wasted on discussing and studying these amendments. How much time did MPs waste on discussing these changes with constituents, listening to lobbyists, researching the issue and attending committee meetings?
Perhaps the Liberal backbencher who brought the amendments forward should repay some of the money that went towards this government waste.
Firearm ownership is one of those issues that requires the government to find a balance. An overly restrictive isn’t going to work. All you’re going to do is make responsible, honest gun owners criminals when they have done nothing wrong.
And you won’t stop people from getting guns if they really want them, and using them for illegal purposes.
Ban all firearms? That’s absurd, although there are some out there clueless enough to suggest such a concept.
But you can’t go too far in the opposite direction, either. All you have to do is look at our neighbours to the south to see what happens when the firearm laws are too permissive.
It’s one of those challenges that stares every government in the face.
Bill C-21 in and of itself goes too far, and these amendments would have been worse.
For example, the alterations to C-21 would have banned any rifle or shotgun that could accept a magazine with more than five rounds, whether it actually has such a magazine or not. And it also intended to ban long guns that generate more than 10,000 joules of energy, or any gun with a muzzle wider than 20 millimetres.
Many firearms would have eventually become illegal.
I’m sure it would have made certain urbanites happy to have all these additional firearms banned. I’m sure they want even more on the banned list. These people don’t understand that a gun can be a tool. And I’m guessing that a lot of them think hunting should be illegal.
These people don’t know anything about rural areas.
And while most of our population is now concentrated in large urban settings, a government has to do better than just buckle to the whims of those who live in big cities.
The amendments drew concerns from rural residents and Indigenous people. The opposition NDP and Bloc Quebecois were also opposed to the measures, which effectively killed the changes. Of course, the opposition Conservative Party was also opposed.
As I’ve said before, I’m not a gun owner. I likely never will be a gun owner. Given my eyesight issues, it’s likely in everyone’s best interests that I not operate firearms or go hunting. And I can think of other things I’d rather have for displays or collections, such as artwork or books.
(Becoming a collector of military items fascinates me, which would cause me to own guns for display purposes tune. But then I’d need a much larger condo).
I believe that people have the right to have firearms, within reason. There needs to be some limitations, within reason. There are some firearms that the average citizen has no need to own, regardless of purpose.
But my list of firearms for the banned list would be much smaller than the federal government’s.
I doubt that this is the end of this debate, and the feds might try to reintroduce some amendments. If they do, we’ll be in for this unnecessary discussion all over again.
