WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM NEW LEGISLATION

Over the past few years, the NFA has been running test cases.  If
Bill C-68 passes, the complex and difficult system of
registration, carrying permits, etc. will apply to all hunting
and target rifles and shotguns.  Court cases as complicated and
difficult as these to directly affect all of your firearms
ownership and use.  YOU are going to be nailed by bad laws.

This first test case dates from September, 1992.  For three years, the
government has done its best to prevent this case from even being
heard, let alone decided, while the NFA has fought it forward.

CASE 1: The 1992 changes to the Criminal Code altered the
registration procedure for certain collector's firearms.  The
government issued instructions that all registration certificates
for all firearms in that class had been revoked, and they would
have to be re-registered before 01 Oct 92.

That was not what the new law actually said, but it is how police
have been enforcing it.  The government's interpretation of the
new law [Criminal Code paragraphs 109(4.1) to (4.3) inclusive] is
highly questionable--but that's a different test case.

David A. Tomlinson applied to re-register one of those firearms. 
The new rules included a requirement that every "genuine gun
collector" submit to "periodic inspections."  He submitted a
letter refusing to submit to "periodic inspections" as a way of
setting up an NFA test case.

His grounds for refusing the "periodic inspections" arise from
his position as National President of the NFA and his work as an
expert witness for the courts.  Because he often appears as an
expert witness for the defence, and because he is involved in NFA
test cases, many police officers view him unfavorably.  He fears,
on reasonable grounds, that "periodic inspections" of his home by
hostile police will become fishing expeditions seeking any and
every possibility of filing criminal charges against him.

That fear is also fueled by the fact that the firearms control
laws and regulations are so badly written that no one knows
exactly what they mean.  Here are the conclusions of Mr. Justice
Gibbs of the Supreme Court of BC, in Hurley v. Dawson [1986]
(Dawson had refused Hurley a permit which would have cost Hurley
his job, for a non-violent marijuana offence.): 

This is a difficult case.  Not the least of the difficulties is
due to the tortuous language of the gun control provisions of the
Criminal Code.  In Regina versus Neil, Judge Gordon was moved,
with some justification, to refer to those provisions as "one of
the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship that I have had
the misfortune to consider", as "so convoluted that even those
responsible for enforcing the provisions are apparently unable to
understand them", and as "a challenge to one"s sense of logic."

Interpretation of those laws varies from province to province,
from city to city, and even police officer to police officer in
the same detachment.  That makes it difficult to obey the
laws.  

That situation has become far worse as a result of Kim Campbell's
and Allan Rock's recent modifications to firearms law.  As an
example of what Mr. Justice Gibbs meant, we offer Campbell's Bill
C-17 new Criminal Code paragraph 91 (4.1): 

91.(4.1) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person to
whom a permit to possess a particular restricted weapon has been
issued under subsection 110 (1) where the person is not the
person mentioned in the registration certificate issued in
respect of the restricted weapon, when the person to whom the
permit has been issued possesses the restricted weapon at the
place authorized by the permit.

and Allan Rock's Firearms Act section 32:

32. A person may transfer a firearm by mail only if

(a) the verifications, notifications, issuances and
authorizations referred to in sections 21 to 28, 30, 31, 40 to
43, and 46 to 52 take place within a reasonable period
before the transfer in the prescribed manner;

(b) the firearm is delivered by a person designated by the chief
firearms officer and the person ensures that the transferee holds
a license authorizing the transferee to acquire that kind of
firearm; and

(c) the prescribed conditions are complied with.

"Prescribed" means ordered by an Order in Council (OIC)--which
you may never have heard of.  And what does "reasonable" mean?

A "periodic inspection" is simply a search in the home of a
"genuine gun collector" by a police officer looking for evidence
to file criminal charges, and the NFA wanted to test whether or
not that is or is not a violation of the right guaranteed by
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 8, "to be secure
against unreasonable search or seizure." 

Under Rock's new rules, many hunters and target shooters will
be subjected to "periodic inspections."

The NFA's intent was to force the Commissioner of the RCMP to
refuse the registration because a "genuine gun collector" had
refused to agree to "periodic inspections," creating grounds for
the test case.  The Commissioner refused by letter, stating that
an appeal could be made to a provincial court judge under
Criminal Code section 112(8).  That proved to be false, and
therefore an example of "official misdirection."

It is not known whether the official misdirection was deliberate
or simply a result of the Commissioner not understanding the law
he was applying in the case.  As Mr. Justice Gibbs so ably
pointed out, ignorance of the law is a strong possibility.

When Mr. Tomlinson appealed, the Crown's lawyer claimed that CC
s. 112(8) could not be used for such an appeal.  The judge
agreed.  Mr. Tomlinson then appealed that decision to the Court
of Queen's Bench, where the same ruling was given.  Throughout,
the Crown stalled, delaying the case as much as it could.

The government stalled the case so long that the period allowed
for taking the case to the Federal Court ran out.  Ted Simmermon
then began an identical and parallel case, starting from scratch. 
That case was then put to the Federal Court.  The Tomlinson
and Simmermon cases were linked, with a request that the two
identical cases be heard at the same time.  Through that
maneuver, there was no point in refusing the Tomlinson case,
so it went forward with the Simmermon NFA test case.

On 28 Sep 95, the combined case goes to Federal Court, where Mr.
Tomlinson and Mr. Simmermon are seeking court orders to force the
Commissioner to issue their registration certificates and void
the "periodic inspections" requirement as a violation of section
8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

It will probably take months to get the final decision.

*****************************************************************

CASE 2: Mr. Simmermon is also the NFA's lead man in another NFA test
case.  In that case, the government issued an OIC classing an
unrestricted rifle owned by Mr. Simmermon as a "prohibited
weapon."  He was asked to turn it in for destruction--without
payment of any compensation for his loss.  

"There is a rule of statutory interpretation in
Anglo-Canadian law that a statute which takes private property is
to be read as implicitly requiring that compensation be paid to
the private owner." [Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of
Canada] 

The NFA set up this test case by having Mr. Simmermon write to the
police refusing to give up his rifle, and requesting that they
seize it so a test case could begin.  The police refused to act,
leaving the "prohibited weapon" in his possession--for months.

The NFA then arranged for the rifle to be exhibited at a gun
show, a letter notifying the police and again requesting that
they seize it, and letters to the media explaining the situation. 
The police were forced to seize it, and the test case began.

The provincial court judge apparently recognized it as a hot
potato.  He ruled against Mr. Simmermon, but gave no reasons for
his decision.  That threw the case upward to the Court of Queen's
Bench with all of Mr. Simmermon's arguments still valid for use.
(If the court had ruled on any particular grounds, only those
narrow grounds could have been considered in the appeal.)

The Court of Queen's Bench (QB) ruled the OIC that outlawed Mr.
Simmermon's rifle invalid for improper enactment and ordered his
property returned.  We expected that would be the most likely
verdict.  The Crown appealed, and its appeal will be heard in
the Alberta Court of Appeal on 27 Nov 95. 

The QB decision is based on the 1983 Manitoba Court of Appeal
precedent set in Repa v. Manitoba.  The Repa case said
that issuing OICs of the type that outlaws sport firearms came
under CC s. 116.  Since 1991, CC s. 116 has required the Minister
to put his "outlawing" OICs before each House of parliament for
30 sitting days.  Campbell and Rock didn't do that, so 11 of
their "outlawing" OICs are apparently invalid.

Interestingly, Bill C-68 allows the Minister to outlaw any or
every firearm, cartridge and firearm accessory in Canada--without
putting it before either House of Parliament and in language
which prevents any court of law from overturning any such OIC he
issues.  He can wreck the entire Canadian firearms community.  He
can order the confiscation--without compensation--of every
hunting and target rifle or shotgun in Canada if C-68 passes.

If you want to help with the fight to protect your rights, join
the NFA: Send $30 (Regular), $40 (Family), or $20 (65+).  Add
$4.75 per person covered for $2,000,000 liability insurance.

Send to: NFA, Box 4384 Stn C, CALGARY AB T2T 5N2