June 14, 1995

Ms. Gayle MacDonald, Director
Criminology and Social Justice Dept.
St. Thomas University
Fredericton, NB

Dear Ms. MacDonald:

This letter is in response to your letter which appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Telegraph Journal supporting Justice Minister Allan Rock and Bill C-68.

You have obviously been misinformed about the implications of Bill C-68. Such is evident by your statement that "This legislation has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with the safety of the general public." A close examination of the facts demonstrates the exact opposite is true.

Firstly, C-68 has everything to do with property rights. Sections 12, 65 and 69 allow for the confiscation of legally owned private property. Fifty-eight percent of the presently registered firearms have been declared prohibited and will be confiscated without compensation upon the death of their current owners. Delaying the confiscation until the owner's death does not change the fact that it is still confiscation. Because the owners will be free to buy and sell between other "grandfathered" owners does not alter the fact that the value of their property will be reduced. This is exactly the same as advising someone that in ten years their house will be expropriated with no compensation, but in the meantime they are free to sell it to only a select group of people. The value of just the handguns, recently prohibited, alone is in the hundreds of millions. This is property legally acquired by law abiding Canadians and eventual confiscation without compensation is outright theft by the State. This establishes a dangerous precedent.

Secondly in terms of further public safety, there exists no evidence to suggest such would be achieved by Bill C-68. Allan Rock sates registration of all firearms would assist police in their investigations; however, the fact is registration diverts police resources away from more important duties. New Zealand and Australia have terminated firearm registration programs on the advice of police. The reasons you cite in your letter supporting registration is that we register vehicles. First of all, as weak an analogy such as this is used when one lacks a rationale argument. However, if we take your analogy between firearms and cars further, it breaks down because registering cars has never resulted in the state confiscating a particular vehicle because of its make. Also, if you choose to keep your car in your yard, you are not required to pay to register it under threat of 10 years imprisonment. Finally, registering vehicles is a means to generate revenues for roads, etc. and has not reduced the numerous traffic deaths that occur each year.

If the federal government wanted to increase the well being of the public, the money earmarked for firearm registration would save more lives if it was put into safety education or the health care system. For example, according to Health Statistics, close to 6000 women each year die of breast cancer. The federal government has budgeted approximately $30 million to research a cure. About 66 women are killed each year by firearms. According to knowledgeable estimates, firearm registration is expected to cost $600 million . Given such, the government is willing to spend 20 times as much money on a vain attempt to protect 1% as many women. If public safety is the real concern, the government is being irrational.

Please consider the above before you endorse Mr. Rock. As an academic, I am sure you would appreciate valid research into firearm regulations in this country and I have therefore included some. Neither Mr. Rock nor the Coalition for Gun Control will provide you such scientific research to validate their views.

G.D. Calhoun
President

Enclosures